China's SCS Strategy Thread

[abc123]

I disagree. It is hardly notable that an American does not wish to see his nation displaced from the pre-eminent position it has enjoyed in world affairs for the past 75 years or so. What is notable is that Bannon apparently believes that war with China is inevitable. This is important because if war between the United States and China is believed to be inevitable, then it is to the United States' advantage to fight that war as soon as possible, before the balance of power shifts in China's favour.

This is similar to Germany's position in 1914 -- Germany believed that the balance of power with Russia was shifting against it, and therefore was willing to risk a conflict that was better fought now than later.

If Bannon (or those who believe as he does) plays a significant role in setting White House policy towards China, we can expect the United States to attempt to back China into a corner from which it has no recourse but to use force, this providing the excuse for a declaration of war aimed at dismantling China's military forces and advanced industrial capacities, thereby restoring US hegemony. At the very least we can expect Washington to be less than enthusiastic about diplomatic processes or policy options that would reduce, rather than increase tensions. In short, with Bannon at the helm China confronts a nation for whom peace is secondary to . Beijing should prepare and act accordingly.

Fully agreed.

 

[Jura The idiot]

according to Military.com China Lashes Out at Mattis Remarks on East China Sea Islands

The U.S. is putting regional stability in East Asia at risk, a Chinese spokesman said Saturday following remarks by President Donald Trump's defense secretary that a U.S. commitment to defend Japanese territory applies to an island group that China claims.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang on Saturday called on the U.S. to avoid discussion of the issue and reasserted China's claim of sovereignty over the tiny uninhabited islands, known in Japanese as the Senkaku and Chinese as Diaoyu.

The 1960 U.S.-Japan treaty is "a product of the Cold War, which should not impair China's territorial sovereignty and legitimate rights," Lu was quoted as saying in a statement posted on the ministry's website.

"We urge the U.S. side to take a responsible attitude, stop making wrong remarks on the issue involving the Diaoyu islands' sovereignty, and avoid making the issue more complicated and bringing instability to the regional situation," Lu said.

On his first trip to Asia as secretary of defense, Mattis explicitly stated in Tokyo that the Trump administration will stick to the previous U.S. stance that the U.S.-Japan security treaty applies to defending Japan's continued administration of the Senkaku islands.

The islands that lie between Taiwan and Okinawa were under U.S. administration from the end of World War II until their return to Japan in 1972. China cites historical records for its claim, and Japan's move to nationalize several of the islands in 2012 set off anti-Japanese riots in China and prompted the government to dispatch ships and planes to the area around them as a challenge to Japanese control.

China also registered its displeasure with Mattis' remarks Friday in South Korea that Trump's administration is committed to carrying through on a deal the Obama administration reached with the Seoul government last year to deploy a high-end U.S. missile defense system to South Korea this year.

The Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, is meant to improve protection of South Korea and Japan -- as well as U.S. troops stationed in both countries -- against a North Korean missile attack.

Beijing objects to the system because its powerful radar would allow it to peer deep into northeastern China, possibly allowing it to observe Chinese military movements.

At a Friday news conference, Lu said China's "resolute opposition to the deployment ... remains unchanged and will not change."

The deployment "will jeopardize security and the strategic interests of regional countries, including China, and undermine the strategic balance in the region," Lu said.

Chinese officials and scholars say they anticipate further turbulence in relations with the U.S. under Trump. The president sparked anger among Chinese following his election when he broke with decades by talking on the phone with the president of Taiwan, the self-governing island democracy that Beijing considers its own territory.

Trump has also raised concerns with criticism of China's military buildup in the South China Sea, accusations of currency manipulation and unfair trade policies and allegations that Beijing was doing too little to pressure its communist neighbor North Korea.

In a lighter moment, however, Chinese media and internet users praised an appearance by Trump's daughter Ivanka and granddaughter Arabella Kushner's visit to the Chinese Embassy in Washington on Wednesday to attend Lunar New Year festivities. A video clip of Arabella singing a song of holiday greetings also set alight China's internet.

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[AssassinsMace]

It's interesting how people have to mince words. They don't do it for China because they want the most intense emotional response against China. Trump thinks he can steal Iraq's oil for a war the US started based on lies. Yet he thinks China building islands in the South China Sea is against the law. When the US doesn't like a country, they'll push for sanctions to punish the citizens because it's their government and they should do something if they don't want to be affected. So who's more responsible for the actions of their government? A non-democratic country to which are usually the target of sanctions or a democratic country where the people get to choose their leaders? Terrorists target civilians in order to force their governments to do what they want too... Americans brag about being able to easily destroy China's aircraft carrier yet if China brags destroying one of theirs with an ASBM, that's a crime in itself. When the US bragged about Prompt Global Strike, it warned potential adversaries that they had to take the time to make sure it wasn't a nuclear tipped warhead before going nuclear. Yet for China's ASBM they will automatically believe it's nuclear tipped and go nuclear if its used to dissuade China from ever using it.

Forbes columnist Anders Corr recently wrote an article calling for the world to deal with China's militarism. The comments were intense pointing to the outright hypocrisy where Anders Corr or the editor changed the title of the article to in effect say they world had to help China turn democratic. That's what happens when some people aren't called out as they should be. They become arrogant and don't reflect upon their own hypocrisy.

 

[Equation]

So what? People all over the world prefer their own culture and religion over others. No need for Bannon to apologize standing up for Judeo-Christian values that basically built the modern world as we know it. QUOTE]

So what?? Judeo- Christian didn't build anything other than slavery and colonization of others for their own self interest! Are you that blind to history or did your church you go to decided to ignore all that? What is so special about it? Judeo-Christian is NOT even a culture it's a cult. You are defending Bannon just because you think he is "standing up" against the entitlement that are being threatening by a changing world that the likes of him belongs to "God".

I disagree. It is hardly notable that an American does not wish to see his nation displaced from the pre-eminent position it has enjoyed in world affairs for the past 75 years or so. What is notable is that Bannon apparently believes that war with China is inevitable. This is important because if war between the United States and China is believed to be inevitable, then it is to the United States' advantage to fight that war as soon as possible, before the balance of power shifts in China's favour.

This is similar to Germany's position in 1914 -- Germany believed that the balance of power with Russia was shifting against it, and therefore was willing to risk a conflict that was better fought now than later.

If Bannon (or those who believe as he does) plays a significant role in setting White House policy towards China, we can expect the United States to attempt to back China into a corner from which it has no recourse but to use force, this providing the excuse for a declaration of war aimed at dismantling China's military forces and advanced industrial capacities, thereby restoring US hegemony. At the very least we can expect Washington to be less than enthusiastic about diplomatic processes or policy options that would reduce, rather than increase tensions. In short, with Bannon at the helm China confronts a nation for whom peace is secondary to . Beijing should prepare and act accordingly.

The world doesn't revolves around the US enjoying that preeminent position of power for the last 75 years or so. Things change and never stays the same forever. Therefore going to war over that status quo when your country was not being invaded or anything like that is just plain dumb. So what if power shifts to China's favor? That doesn't mean the world's coming to an end.

Beijing has been prepared and act accordingly because it has way better leaders than those incompetent insecure loud mouths of the latest administration whose in it to keep the Good Ole Boys system alive. We can expect more angry tweets follow by the "presses are out to get me" from the Trump administration.

 

[PanAsian]

according to Military.com China Lashes Out at Mattis Remarks on East China Sea Islands

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That's a sensationalist headline, the story shows all sides are staying the course talking past and acting past each other and nothing has changed regarding the Diaoyus/Senkakus. Nor the SCS territorial disputes, military FON vs local sovereignty, North Korea missile and nuclear development, US THAAD in South Korea.

 

[PanAsian]

These statements are a while back now, but Steve Bannon, influential Trump advisor and avowed white nationalist, says that

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with China:

The main thing to note from Bannon's statement is the 5-10 year timeline. In all likelihood that is when the US will have a raft of the latest and greatest military technologies deployed en masse thereby maintaining or re-establishing a generational lead over China across the board militarily even if China continues to play a good game of catch up. This would be the ideal time for the US to instigate a fight with China before the gap in relative capabilities narrows again.

 

[solarz]

The main thing to note from Bannon's statement is the 5-10 year timeline. In all likelihood that is when the US will have a raft of the latest and greatest military technologies deployed en masse thereby maintaining or re-establishing a generational lead over China across the board militarily even if China continues to play a good game of catch up. This would be the ideal time for the US to instigate a fight with China before the gap in relative capabilities narrows again.

The United States hasn't fought a peer adversary since the Korean War, and we all know how that turned out.

Any US-China armed conflict will necessarily happen on China's front steps, as China is not going anywhere else in the foreseeable future. What would happen if China simply knocks out all US military satellites? All of the US' latest military technology makes heavy use of a information network. That technological advantage vanishes without their satellites.

 

[antiterror13]

It's simply not going to happen .... there won't be any war between the US and China ... as it means the end of the world as we know it ... and I dont think Trump is that dumb .. he and his big families having a very very nice life .. he wouldn't risk it.

And do you think Russia just sit and watching? .. Russia knows too well, even the US would defeat China ....... Russia would be the next ... how about Iran? NK?, South America, etc, etc

What would happen ... there would be some sort of trade frictions (or little trade wars) ... and after a while there would be some agreements between these two most powerful countries economically

 

[B.I.B.]

The United States hasn't fought a peer adversary since the Korean War, and we all know how that turned out.

Any US-China armed conflict will necessarily happen on China's front steps, as China is not going anywhere else in the foreseeable future. What would happen if China simply knocks out all US military satellites? All of the US' latest military technology makes heavy use of a information network. That technological advantage vanishes without their satellites.

Loosing GPS would really annoy neutral countries.

 

[plawolf]

The main thing to note from Bannon's statement is the 5-10 year timeline. In all likelihood that is when the US will have a raft of the latest and greatest military technologies deployed en masse thereby maintaining or re-establishing a generational lead over China across the board militarily even if China continues to play a good game of catch up. This would be the ideal time for the US to instigate a fight with China before the gap in relative capabilities narrows again.

I wouldn't read too much into Bannon's timeline.

I have seen nothing from him that would suggest he is a keen military buff to be so clued into the delicate shifting balance of military power between China and the US.

I would bet good money he is one of the overwhelming majority in the US who takes it for granted that the US military is the greatest in the world, and would simply not believe anyone could stand up to the US military machine.

His timeline is most likely entirely based on US domestic political considerations rather than a careful evaluation of comparative military strengths. If it even goes that far. It could just as likely be a figure he pulled out of thin air.

Besides, that 5-10 year timeline suits China way more than the US.

US next gen weapons like the F35 and DDG1000 are more evolutionary than revolutionary. OTOH, China's upcoming weapons represents a quantum leap compared to what it operates now.

On balance, China benefits way more getting the J20, 096 SSNs, 055DDGs etc online than the US would from F35s, more Virginias and Zimmys.

The United States hasn't fought a peer adversary since the Korean War, and we all know how that turned out.

Any US-China armed conflict will necessarily happen on China's front steps, as China is not going anywhere else in the foreseeable future. What would happen if China simply knocks out all US military satellites? All of the US' latest military technology makes heavy use of a information network. That technological advantage vanishes without their satellites.

I think the key question is not whether China plans on having MAD in space, but rather the timing and escalation path that will trigger such a plan.

My belief is that China will start off with jamming and/or blinding rather than using kinetic kill vehicles to take out US satellites.

If the US attacks Chinese satellites and/or attacks targets on the Chinese mainland, China may well start taking out US satellites to degrade their ability to attack mainland targets.