China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Gloire_bb]

Vietnamese installation is too insignificant

1. Vietnam itself is geographically close to Spratly archipelago.
Mainland assets can be used directly, both aerial and maritime. This includes countable air force, as well as recently expanded navy with serious firepower.
2. Vietnam has actual isle, which are currently being extended(the same way Chinese reefs were).
3. They showed capability to rapidly deploy Bastion-p(supersonic ascm with lacm capability), EXTRA, as well as SAM batteries(Spyder) to Spratly island.

Long story short: Vietnamese factor actually matters a lot, to the point of being valuable(if not crucial) in any US&friends and China developments.

 

[Blackstone]

1. Vietnam itself is geographically close to Spratly archipelago.
Mainland assets can be used directly, both aerial and maritime. This includes countable air force, as well as recently expanded navy with serious firepower.
2. Vietnam has actual isle, which are currently being extended(the same way Chinese reefs were).
3. They showed capability to rapidly deploy Bastion-p(supersonic ascm with lacm capability), EXTRA, as well as SAM batteries(Spyder) to Spratly island.

Long story short: Vietnamese factor actually matters a lot, to the point of being valuable(if not crucial) in any US&friends and China developments.

Whatever geographic and interior lines of communication advantages Vietnam enjoys over China in the South China Sea, they know in the end, it's their long land border with the China that determine their relations. That's why China will continue to have Vietnam respect its core interests in the SCS, and it really doesn't matter who Hanoi cozies up to.

 

[Gloire_bb]

it's their long land border with the China that determine their relations.

It doesn't work this way. Probably, quite the contrary, such geographical proximity brings fear more than anything else.
Last Sino-Vietnamese conflict wasn't that far away in the past to begin with.

More like communist governements tend to interact better after fall of the Soviet Union.

But, nevertheless, whole current expenasion of Vietnamese naval assets(large ALCM-equipped sub deal, surface combatants, ASCMs), are aimed against Chinese activity.

 

[PiSigma]

It doesn't work this way. Probably, quite the contrary, such geographical proximity brings fear more than anything else.
Last Sino-Vietnamese conflict wasn't that far away in the past to begin with.

More like communist governements tend to interact better after fall of the Soviet Union.

But, nevertheless, whole current expenasion of Vietnamese naval assets(large ALCM-equipped sub deal, surface combatants, ASCMs), are aimed against Chinese activity.

SCS will not happen in isolation if Vietnam gets involved, if vietnam attacks one of china's island then they can assume all their holding in SCS will be gone in the counter attack. Also they can assume an invasion from land. That's why the Vietnamese leadership won't want to mess with china., they are not stupid and don't want to be used as a pawn.

 

[Gloire_bb]

SCS will not happen in isolation if Vietnam gets involved

No one talks about 1v1 scenario. It's hardly winnable. And it's unlikely.

But in case of 3rd party action, if they won't get involved - it can happen regardless, as it already did.

Thus - threatening position is important for them, thanks to allowing to maintain status quo.

 

[plawolf]

There are two main ways of placing mines in contested area: submarines(self-deploying ones), or aerial(if we're talking about US - with JDAM-like kits), typically (but not necessarily) by strategic bombers.
Both can be performed even with very strong opposition.

And that clearly shows you have little idea what you are talking about.

Please, do some minimal basic research and then tell us the precise make, model, operating ranges and vintages of these magical naval mines you speak of. Maybe then you will see how out of touch those claims are with reality.

The only remotely viable option would be sub deployed naval mines. But US inventories of such mines are low and extremely old.

Then you have the operating limitations of these mines as well as problems with deployment scenarios, but I doubt you even considered anything remotely as advanced to bother wasting time and effort in explaining the obvious difficulties there.

Other options(minelaying by surface combatants, requesitioned vessels or sneaky options with maritime militia and/or light forces) are less prominent in case of US, but, say, Vietnam has every ingredient in place.

China would actually just love it for anyone to be utterly moronic enough to try something like that, because to do so would:
A) only cause minor nascence at best in the grand scheme of things for China, and far more importantly;
B) give China carte blanche to make the offending nation's entire civilian and military fleets fair game for shooting practice. And the cherry on top would be that China could claim, with a complete straight face, to be protecting freedom of navigation as they go about sinking any and every ship they want from said nation. Since the gloves are off and all.

Also, unlike Paracel chain("shadowed" by Hainan), Spratly trio, as fortified as they are, are actually quite far away from mainland China, yet far less so from others. Not only this, but there are quite a few other nations aroynd, sometimes(again, Vietnam) with very significant installations of their own. They're just overshadowed in English-speaking press by Chinese activity, but should never be forgotten.

Again, a divorce with reality. Please provide us some photographic evidence of these 'significant installations' of other nations in the SCS. Once again, once you have actually seen what installations the other claimants have in the SCS, you will see how out of touch that claim was.

 

[sanblvd]

The US can only print money for so long before the entire house of cards crumbles. On that day there will be a reckoning. A reckoning upon all the progressive lunatics who want to fund this or that social program and upon all the conservative warmongers who want to have more weapons than the US needs or its economy can support. One day we will have spent ourselves into utter ruin, all the while the cowards and idiots in Congress promising us more stuff that we don't have the money to buy. Sequestration is all but gone. Any pretense of fiscal discipline is gone. The Orange One is going to add yet another massive pile of debt onto our already massive mountain of debt. The one straw that breaks the camel's back is going to fall any day now...

US do have a debt problem, but at this point as long as US is able to maintain its military, it should not worry.

The way I see it US enjoy its current advantage mainly from 4 aspects. 1. Economy. 2.PR 3. Soft power 4. military.

1. Economy has suffered the most, since US let the bankers play casino with US housing/banking industry, it almost plummeted into a world wide depression. The legitimacy is of US economy's supremacy is gone. China is also challenging silicon valley, and trying to build up the new economic network right now with their trade lines. so I don't see US will maintain this monopoly for long, this will be the 1st pillar to crack.

2. Propaganda, US has always controlled the narrative of western world's opinion, and now look like Russia and the internet is doing a good job challenge it, and I see them losing more control. This will crack second.

3. Soft power, still holding up pretty good, Hollywood is still pretty dominate, US culture is still widely admired. For all that China is done, their soft power still sucks overseas.

4. Military, you can argue that US military's sense of invincibility has been very much shattered by Afghanistan/Iraq, however they fact that they still have 400+ bases all around the world, and the nations that let them host those bases, says much more.

And the most important thing of all, as long as they protect the Saudi and GCC, the Saudi will sell oil in USD. For better for worse, US is still the guarantor for security for most nations in the world. For this, China is no match, because they are trying to outplay US in the economic game, which is a smart move.

As long as US can maintain this vast military network, the they will be able to exchange printed piece of paper for goods and services. For that, maybe Donald knows something.

 

[Blackstone]

It doesn't work this way. Probably, quite the contrary, such geographical proximity brings fear more than anything else.
Last Sino-Vietnamese conflict wasn't that far away in the past to begin with.

More like communist governements tend to interact better after fall of the Soviet Union.

But, nevertheless, whole current expenasion of Vietnamese naval assets(large ALCM-equipped sub deal, surface combatants, ASCMs), are aimed against Chinese activity.

But for China, Vietnam would be the heavy in SE Asia. While Vietnam wants strategic space to carve out its own empire, it knows it can only go as far as China will tolerate. But, it will push the limits nonetheless. In other words, Hanoi will itch until Beijing scratch. It's a Kabuki dance, and the Vietnamese are very good at it.

Vietnam's leaders past and present know the country must stand up to China, while at the same time not irk it too much. When Hanoi crosses an invisible red line, such as forming a military alliance with the Soviet Union, Beijing expressed its displeasure in a short border war. Credit the Vietnamese, because they've learned how to deal with the Middle Kingdom for over a thousand years, and there's no reason to believe they can't keep it up for another thousand.

 

[Gloire_bb]

While Vietnam wants strategic space to carve out its own empire, it knows it can only go as far as China will tolerate.

Such approach tend to not work: you'll be tolerated only when you're credible.
In other words, price of taking action against you wastly exceeds price of tolerance, at least, till certain point.

Second part - want it or not, but for Vietnam SCS is crucial. Too much at stake for them, for obvious geographical reasons.

 

[Blackstone]

Such approach tend to not work: you'll be tolerated only when you're credible.
In other words, price of taking action against you wastly exceeds price of tolerance, at least, till certain point

I agree and we saw that in 1979 when China finally had enough of tolerance and invaded Vietnam for two strategic objectives: force Vietnam to leave Cambodia, and show Vietnam its military alliance with the USSR was worthless. China failed in the former and succeeded in the latter. In fact, it was so successful, when Vietnamese protesters destroyed what they thought were PRC factories (they were ROC factories) and killed some Chinese, the mere movement of some PLA units along the Sino-Vietnamese border was enough for Hanoi to crackdown on the protesters.

The object lesson is, once you killed a chicken to scare the monkeys, the mere suggestion of killing another chicken is enough to quiet them down. The actual killing and the associated costs might not be necessary.

Second part - want it or not, but for Vietnam SCS is crucial. Too much at stake for them, for obvious geographical reasons.

I'm fully prepared to accept Vietnam views SCS as no less crucial as PRC views it. But, what of it? The power disparity between the two is so vast, China will do what it can, and Vietnam will suffer as it must. That's what great powers do to lesser powers.