China's SCS Strategy Thread

[plawolf]

Actually, they have the best proxies to face against China (sorry for reply to an old post). And if the war occur, The United States will get a very big benefit for that. Because beside they can reduce China's economy and industry (as they can bomb China mainland and China will difficult to do the same to the US mainland), the war will also destroy the East Asian industry and economy as a whole.

Because the US will definitely call South Korea and Japan as their proxy. Mean, these two countries will be legit as bomb target by China. Thus, the two countries' economy and industry will get affected too, if not destroyed (as their land mass is too small to protect the whole industry area)

With everything that happen in the war, China economy will reduce, Japan and Korea will also destroyed. Thus, US get the benefit because they will become the only country that industry and economy untouched by the war.

I say, good strategy.

In any SCS conflict scenario, SK and Japan would be further away than China, so would offer little in the way of pivotal support. SK especially does not see the SCS issue as a major concern, so it would be very unlikely for them to want to get involved.

In addition, strikes against target on the mainland, especially civilian targets, will be seen as a massive escalation that will force a Chinese retaliatory Strike.

Such strikes do not have to be purely conventional military either, or strict like for like. So, China could launch cyber attacks to destroy critical US infrastructure like power stations; make damns open the flood gates to cause flooding etc; and/or China could simply got for MAD in space and systematically blow every US satellite, military and civilian, out of the sky.

US retaliatory strikes will wipe out Chinese satellites, but since the US military (and economy) is far more dependent on satellites than the China's, Beijing could easily see that as a big net positive despite the heavy losses.

That will shortcut everyone onto an extreme escalation path that could easily end with total nuclear war, which not even Trump will want.

 

[Brainsuker]

In any SCS conflict scenario, strikes against target on the mainland, especially civilian targets, will be seen as a massive escalation that will force a Chinese retaliatory Strike.

Such strikes do not have to be purely conventional military either, or strict like for like. So, China could launch cyber attacks to destroy critical US infrastructure like power stations; make damns open the flood gates to cause flooding; or China could simply got for MAD in space and systematically blow every US satellite, military and civilian, out of the sky.

US retaliatory strikes will wipe out Chinese satellites, but since the US military is far more dependent on satellites than the Chinese, Beijing could easily see that as a big net positive despite the heavy losses.

That will shortcut everyone onto an extreme escalation path that could easily end with total nuclear war, which not even Trump will want.

Nah, I think, it is more logical if China strike the military bases around her country that being use by the US as their initial position to attack China. The most possible countries are Japan and South Korea. As they are the US allies in Asia. Then Taiwan, and Vietnam. Thus, when the US and China is at war, those countries will be involve.

Now, would China will stay quiet when their territory being threatened from Japan and S. Korea territory? Will they act like Iraq (Saddam Husein era) and passively wait for the US attack? No. They will attack. Thus, Japan and Korea (and the other proxy Countries that help the US) will become the legit target for China military strike.

Maybe, for the US eyes, the war won't effect their country too much, but for these proxy, it will a case of life and dead situation.They really-really-really need a firm resolve to join the war.

So for China to survive the war, they have to make sure that the countries around her won't have a firm resolve to enter the life and dead situation against China. They have to make sure that those proxy countries understand, that joining the US in a war against China is a dead wish. Thus reduce the US capability to project power near China.

 

[Blackstone]

that's actually a fair question, and I would assume the answer is yes, and if so, lots of other folks will have a problem with that?

Aye, lots of people all over the world have problems with China asserting its rights, and as long as the claims are legitimate, then they'll just have to take it. So, the million dollar question is what claims are legit and what are excessive?

I'm fairly certain the nine dash line represents an EEZ claim rather than a territorial waters claim, since even under the most generous stretching of UNCLOS rules those artificial islands can still only stake out a 12nm zone around the islands as territorial waters. So China's interpretation of its SCS EEZ "rights" would be the same as its interpretation of its EEZ "rights" elsewhere, i.e. no spying by foreign powers inside the EEZ (which it interprets as military activities but the USN apparently does not). I have no doubt China does not have any desire to restrict the movement of commercial shipping or the "innocent passage" of foreign naval vessels (i.e. no military activities).

True, there's no evidence China ever impeded commercial or civilian traffic on normal passages. Western officials, pundits, and media usually omit that fact, IMHO because it doesn't fit their agenda of making China out to be the bad actor.

The 9-dash line can't be explained as EEZ claims, because only coast lines and natural islands get 200 mi EEZs, rocks, land features, and artificial islands don't. Taiping is the only natural island in the Spratlys, the Permanent Arbitration debate club not withstanding, and a 200 mi radius around it covers much smaller area than the 9-dash line. Finally, even if we accept the 9-dash line as EEZ, it's improperly drawn, because it extends deep into other countries' EEZ.

If the 9-dash line isn't EEZ claims, then what is it? I think it's zone of influence marker and not territorial claims. Post WWII China, first under RoC and now under the PRC, claimed the SCS influence, but until recently didn't have the ability to enforce its claims. And now is has.

 

[plawolf]

Nah, I think, it is more logical if China strike the military bases around her country that being use by the US as their initial position to attack China. The most possible countries are Japan and South Korea. As they are the US allies in Asia. Then Taiwan, and Vietnam. Thus, when the US and China is at war, those countries will be involve.

Now, would China will stay quiet when their territory being threatened from Japan and S. Korea territory? Will they act like Iraq (Saddam Husein era) and passively wait for the US attack? No. They will attack. Thus, Japan and Korea (and the other proxy Countries that help the US) will become the legit target for China military strike.

Maybe, for the US eyes, the war won't effect their country too much, but for these proxy, it will a case of life and dead situation.They really-really-really need a firm resolve to join the war.

So for China to survive the war, they have to make sure that the countries around her won't have a firm resolve to enter the life and dead situation against China. They have to make sure that those proxy countries understand, that joining the US in a war against China is a dead wish. Thus reduce the US capability to project power near China.

Sounds like American chicken hawks' wishful thinking.

Japan and South Korea are on the fence about getting involve, so let's attack them first just in case they do decide to get involved? Yeah, because that makes perfect sense.

If SK or Japan becomes active participants in US led military operations against China (which includes allowing the US to use military bases on their territory to launch attacks against China), then China will strike back against them. But not before.

The severity and scope of those attacks will depend on extent of active co-operation.

So if the US used bases in SK to attack China, against the express wish of the SK government, then China may limit retalitory strikes against those US bases only (provided SK military does not try to stop the attacking Chinese assets).

US strikes on Chinese military targets on the mainland may well trigger a Chinese counter targeted at US military satellites, and/or major Chinese attacks against Guam. But if the US is not launching those attacks from bases in SK or Japan, it would be absolutely stupid for China to attack US military forces and facilities in those countries' territory. As that will only serve to force the hand of those two countries to join the US when they would otherwise probably have sat the whole thing out.

 

[PanAsian]

In any SCS conflict scenario, SK and Japan would be further away than China, so would offer little in the way of pivotal support. SK especially does not see the SCS issue as a major concern, so it would be very unlikely for them to want to get involved.

In addition, strikes against target on the mainland, especially civilian targets, will be seen as a massive escalation that will force a Chinese retaliatory Strike.

Such strikes do not have to be purely conventional military either, or strict like for like. So, China could launch cyber attacks to destroy critical US infrastructure like power stations; make damns open the flood gates to cause flooding etc; and/or China could simply got for MAD in space and systematically blow every US satellite, military and civilian, out of the sky.

US retaliatory strikes will wipe out Chinese satellites, but since the US military (and economy) is far more dependent on satellites than the China's, Beijing could easily see that as a big net positive despite the heavy losses.

That will shortcut everyone onto an extreme escalation path that could easily end with total nuclear war, which not even Trump will want.

I also think that is China's strategy however I think you are underestimating Trump's risk appetite, his administration's hawkishness towards China, and potential near future leaps in US and allied BMD capabilities that make war tempting for the US. Only a more robust nuclear deterrent and/or BMD capability on China's part can balance this out.

 

[Lethe]

Certainly China's behaviour towards South Korea and Japan in the event of an SCS conflict would be dictated by the actions of those nations' governments and of American forces located within them.

Nonetheless, I would urge Chinese planners not to neglect how far and how rapidly such a situation could escalate. Potentially, a renewed Korean war is on the cards. And in such circumstances, China's objectives should be clear and its forces prepared to achieve them: (1) to remove the Americans from Korea, (2) to unify Korea under a China-friendly administration (preferably by removing the current North Korean leadership and extending the present one in South Korea) and (3) to get out and restore united Korean sovereignty as quickly as possible, with it being clearly understood that China will not tolerate further deployment of foreign forces in Korea.

 

[PanAsian]

now I read Spicer South China Sea Comments Draw Negative Beijing Response

it's USNI News

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...
“I think the U.S. is going to make sure that we protect our interests there. So it’s a question of if those islands are in fact in international waters and are not part of China proper then yeah we’re going to make sure we defend international territories from being taken over by one country,” he said on Monday.

Spicer’s comments are more moderate than those of Trump secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson, who told the Senate on Jan. 11 the U.S. could use military power to block Chinese access to the string of artificial islands Beijing has built in the Spratlys off of the Philippines.
...
“The United States does not take a position on the question of territorial sovereignty, but we do take a position on whether maritime claims accord with the international law of the sea, as well as the manner in which countries pursue such claims,” a Defense Department spokesman told USNI News on Monday.
...

This article perfectly illustrates self-contradictory US statements as highlighted above. Spicer's comments merely describe the situation in a wider scope than Tillerson's but are no less extreme in calling for the US to take sides in SCS territorial claims, which of course is the opposite of what the Pentagon is saying and previous US administrations have said.

Obviously this is about US as in Other Countries' (Not China) SCS Strategies:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/south-china-sea-strategies-for-other-nations-not-china.t7302/

 

[Brainsuker]

Sounds like American chicken hawks' wishful thinking.

Japan and South Korea are on the fence about getting involve, so let's attack them first just in case they do decide to get involved? Yeah, because that makes perfect sense.

If SK or Japan becomes active participants in US led military operations against China (which includes allowing the US to use military bases on their territory to launch attacks against China), then China will strike back against them. But not before.

The severity and scope of those attacks will depend on extent of active co-operation.

So if the US used bases in SK to attack China, against the express wish of the SK government, then China may limit retalitory strikes against those US bases only (provided SK military does not try to stop the attacking Chinese assets).

US strikes on Chinese military targets on the mainland may well trigger a Chinese counter targeted at US military satellites, and/or major Chinese attacks against Guam. But if the US is not launching those attacks from bases in SK or Japan, it would be absolutely stupid for China to attack US military forces and facilities in those countries' territory. As that will only serve to force the hand of those two countries to join the US when they would otherwise probably have sat the whole thing out.

What are you talking about? Did I said that China should attack S.Korea and Japan first before they involved in a war between China and US? What I said was a decision that happen after the conflict arise and the war begin. Just look at what happen in Iraqi war. US use Saudi as their initial position to attack Iraq. Now, if the war is happen to US and China, what will the US do? They will amass their troop in the proxy state. In Iraq war case, it was Saudi. In case of China, it will Australia, Japan and (maybe) S. Korea.

When those countries have agree to use their land as the US initial position to attack China, then, they have already have decide that they are with the US side and become the enemy of China.Thus, their land become legit as target by China military attack.

Now, do you understand what I write? I'm sorry if it's confusing, as English is not my native English, and it's not even my second language. my English grammar is suck.

Now, you said that US used the bases in SK to attack China against the express wish of the SK government. It is impossible. Because in order for the US to have enough power to strike China, they have to pool their assets in SK first. Just like what they did to Iraq. They amass their troops in Saudi. By allowing the US to use their land as the base to attack China, it means that SK has decide that they are taking side and join the war with the US military element. So, like it or not, their land has become legit to be targeted by China military.

Now, what kind of resolve that the SK government need to involve in a war against China? Because when they decide to do that, it's mean that they have to accept that their land will become the battlefield, and like it or not, their industry and economy will be affected, in a massive scale. Thus reduce their nation power as a whole. You need a lot of resolve to do that. Of course, the US will force their will to these proxy states. But at the end, it is their government that have to decide. Because it is a matter of life and dead for their country.

Now, if China can prevent those proxy governments from finding their resolve, then they won't take side and will become neutral, thus limiting the US power projection, as they won't find enough base to properly fight against China.

I'm sorry if I can't give you easier explanation because of my limited English Capability.

 

[Iron Man]

The 9-dash line can't be explained as EEZ claims, because only coast lines and natural islands get 200 mi EEZs, rocks, land features, and artificial islands don't. Taiping is the only natural island in the Spratlys, the Permanent Arbitration debate club not withstanding, and a 200 mi radius around it covers much smaller area than the 9-dash line. Finally, even if we accept the 9-dash line as EEZ, it's improperly drawn, because it extends deep into other countries' EEZ.

If the 9-dash line isn't EEZ claims, then what is it? I think it's zone of influence marker and not territorial claims. Post WWII China, first under RoC and now under the PRC, claimed the SCS influence, but until recently didn't have the ability to enforce its claims. And now is has.

Well China made this claim before UNCLOS and the concept of EEZs and how they are demarcated post-UNCLOS, so this would be a retrojection of the EEZ concept into a prior existing historical claim to help understand how it might work out practically in today's world. That nine dash line probably means China claims exclusive resource development rights within the line just like an EEZ, and of course all the land features within it. The fact that modern delineations of EEZs would mean that some of the coastal states' EEZs would overlap the nine dash line is seen by China as invalid because of its claims laid down prior to the development of UNCLOS (and it would say also prior to any other nations' claims). When China acceded to UNCLOS it made it clear that its territorial claims made prior to its accession (e.g. its nine dash line) would not be affected. Unlike the US, which enforces UNCLOS when it suits them but deliberately did not ratify UNCLOS so that it could easily be ignored, when it suits them.

 

[Equation]

Actually, they have the best proxies to face against China (sorry for reply to an old post). And if the war occur, The United States will get a very big benefit for that. Because beside they can reduce China's economy and industry (as they can bomb China mainland and China will difficult to do the same to the US mainland), the war will also destroy the East Asian industry and economy as a whole.

Because the US will definitely call South Korea and Japan as their proxy. Mean, these two countries will be legit as bomb target by China. Thus, the two countries' economy and industry will get affected too, if not destroyed (as their land mass is too small to protect the whole industry area)

With everything that happen in the war, China economy will reduce, Japan and Korea will also destroyed. Thus, US get the benefit because they will become the only country that industry and economy untouched by the war.

I say, good strategy.

DPRK nukes should be more than enough to neutralize both Japan and South Korea as US proxy allies against China. That means the US has to confront North Korea with nukes instead of China meanwhile the entire world stock market will tumble (hurt the US the most) each day. Even without nukes being used from either side with just conventional weapons would cause a lot of harm and distrust to both South Koreans and Japanese people whom sees that their alliance with the US has become problematic and dangerous.