China's SCS Strategy Thread

[plawolf]

China does not need to rely on nukes in the SCS because its conventional military advantage is all but overwhelming.

It can have the islands soak up near infinite amounts of damage while its warships and warplanes launch massed missile strikes against attackers.

It’s the worst catch22 for any attacker. To take the islands, you need to neutralise the Chinese fleet and Air Force, but to get at the PLAN, you need to get past the islands.

Static island defence alone is easy to crack, but powerful island defences backed up by a massive and modern naval fleet and Air Force is going to be one hell of a hard and costly nut to crack.

On top of that the balance is industrial capabilities have shifted. The US can no longer outbuild their enemy like they could during WWII, if the conflict stretches long enough for that to become a factor, Chinese advantage becomes even more unassailable.

Ironically, my one worry is that the US might resort to tactical nukes, as that is they only way I can think of where they could feasibly take out China’s SCS islands without suffering catastrophic losses that would effectively end them as a military superpower.

That may be another reason Trump is pushing for conflict in the SCS instead of Taiwan, as any use of tactical nukes around Taiwan by the US will absolutely lead to full scale nuclear exchange, but if he just nukes China’s SCS islands, that puts Beijing in a tough bind as what a proportionate response could be without triggering a full scale nuclear exchange.

 

[B.I.B.]

China does not need to rely on nukes in the SCS because its conventional military advantage is all but overwhelming.

It can have the islands soak up near infinite amounts of damage while its warships and warplanes launch massed missile strikes against attackers.

It’s the worst catch22 for any attacker. To take the islands, you need to neutralise the Chinese fleet and Air Force, but to get at the PLAN, you need to get past the islands.

Static island defence alone is easy to crack, but powerful island defences backed up by a massive and modern naval fleet and Air Force is going to be one hell of a hard and costly nut to crack.

On top of that the balance is industrial capabilities have shifted. The US can no longer outbuild their enemy like they could during WWII, if the conflict stretches long enough for that to become a factor, Chinese advantage becomes even more unassailable.

Ironically, my one worry is that the US might resort to tactical nukes, as that is they only way I can think of where they could feasibly take out China’s SCS islands without suffering catastrophic losses that would effectively end them as a military superpower.

That may be another reason Trump is pushing for conflict in the SCS instead of Taiwan, as any use of tactical nukes around Taiwan by the US will absolutely lead to full scale nuclear exchange, but if he just nukes China’s SCS islands, that puts Beijing in a tough bind as what a proportionate response could be without triggering a full scale nuclear exchange.

While they may argue that those shoals don't belong to China so it's ok to nuke them. However, with Chinese personnel on them, China would view it as an attack on China and will respond accordingly like using a tactical nuke if they have one in Hawaii. I think the US is quite capable of targeting infrastructure on the mainland whereas I don't think China can hit back in a conventional manner. What do you reckon?

 

[plawolf]

While they may argue that those shoals don't belong to China so it's ok to nuke them. However, with Chinese personnel on them, China would view it as an attack on China and will respond accordingly like using a tactical nuke if they have one in Hawaii. I think the US is quite capable of targeting infrastructure on the mainland whereas I don't think China can hit back in a conventional manner. What do you reckon?

Key word is proportionately. Hawaii has over a million civilian inhabitants, dropping a nuke there would be little different from a nuclear attack against a major city on the CONUS, which will pretty much automatically lead to total nuclear war and everyone dies.

Even Guam has a civilian population of nearly 170k. While we don’t know how many people China has on its SCS islands, it’s going to be nowhere close to that figure. Meaning if China retaliated against US tactical nuclear strikes against SCS islands with a tactical nuclear strike on Guam, the US would likely feel it needs to respond to the response, and that’s another easy path to total nuclear war.

The closest proportionate target would be Kedena, but even then a shedload of civilians will die ( but Trump may feel less pressure to escalate further since the overwhelming majority of will Japanese civilians who die), however dropping a nuke on that would all but guarantee that Japan would nuke up.

I could quite easily see Trump and his chicken-hawk advisors viewing Japan arming up with nukes and more conventional weapons as an absolute win.

 

[EtherealSmoke]

I’m reasonably confident the military options talk is all just China-hawk desperation rhetoric. Do we really believe the Americans will go to the mat for Taiwan or some rocks in the SCS?

Come on. These areas are all within the 1st Island Chain. China dominates the escalation ladder here and will be able to coerce the USA with nuclear weapons. As long as the Chinese can pose the existential question to the American homeland and American policy-makers, I don’t see how it’s credible that the Americans can prevail in these locations with force. Militarily, the Chinese can freely escalate to eliminate all challengers.

Perhaps the more likely goal is some sort of incident/accident that could be framed to decouple China economically from the rest of the globe and solidify the Cold War narrative.

 

[plawolf]

But you can flip that and ask if China is willing to put everything on the line for some islands in the SCS?

Also, China has absolute conventional escalation advantage in the SCS, but once things goes nuclear, it’s at best a tie, but most likely America still holds a significant escalation advantage, especially in light of the lack of clear proportional response targets for China to strike back against without an unacceptable risk of triggering all out nuclear war.

We also need to remember that Trump is a reckless gambler who is growing increasingly desperate as his poll ratings plummet.

I can easily see him throwing long term US
strategic interests out the window if he thinks a military clash will give him the fleeting boost he needs for a second term.

For example, he could easily escalate tensions until he has a pretext for military action, send in a SSGN to spam a few (conventionally armed) missile at the SCS islands from a few thousand miles away as fast as it can launch them and then head immediately back to base with minimal risk. He can then issue an ultimatum that he will respond with tactical nuclear weapons against China SCS bases if China retaliates.

I can see China limiting itself to non-direct responses in such a scenario, especially if little to not damage was done on the islands themselves.

For example, China could simply declare everything west of the first and maybe even second island chain as off limits to US military assets, with a shoot on sight order in place for any US military vessel or aircraft spotted in that area.

Trump gets to say he dropped the hammer on China and made the big bad boogeyman back down, while China effectively pushes the US out of its backyard.

I can see both sides living with that outcome.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

I can easily see him throwing long term US
strategic interests out the window if he thinks a military clash will give him the fleeting boost he needs for a second term.

I've recently been thinking along those lines as well. The question is will the US military obey him, especially if he gives an order to conduct any sort of nuclear strike out of electoral desperation. I find that doubtful. His cabinet - especially Pompeo, who harbours presidential ambitions of his own - could 25th him if he loses his mind like that. They like the "get tough of China" rhetoric; sure, close a consulate here, arrest some students there. But starting a war with China is an entirely different matter.

Trump gets to say he dropped the hammer on China and made the big bad boogeyman back down, while China effectively pushes the US out of its backyard.

I can see both sides living with that outcome.

That would be a splendid outcome. China expels the US from the western Pacific in exchange for a few potholes in some runways.

 

[muddie]

This talk of war in the SCS is silly and a military engagement initiated by the U.S. in SCS is off the table at this point.

The very fact that the U.S. has chose to dance around Iran and North Korea for the past decades, and fight with sanctions rather than a conventional war shows that the U.S. does not have the stomach for any military engagements, especially ones that do not directly threaten the mainland.

Also, Trump has frequently said that if he loses the election, he would accept defeat and step down. Trump is not going to start something in the SCS and risk MAD just so he could stay in office for another 4 years. Not to mention any type of high risk / large scale U.S. military engagement would require partisan political backing, something Trump doesn't have for SCS.

 

[Petrolicious88]

This talk of war in the SCS is silly and a military engagement initiated by the U.S. in SCS is off the table at this point.

The very fact that the U.S. has chose to dance around Iran and North Korea for the past decades, and fight with sanctions rather than a conventional war shows that the U.S. does not have the stomach for any military engagements, especially ones that do not directly threaten the mainland.

Also, Trump has frequently said that if he loses the election, he would accept defeat and step down. Trump is not going to start something in the SCS and risk MAD just so he could stay in office for another 4 years. Not to mention any type of high risk / large scale U.S. military engagement would require partisan political backing, something Trump doesn't have for SCS.

1). Agree that war is unlikely. But limited engagement Is not impossible given how low relations have gone, and how so quickly it has done so. US is provoking China. And pressuring China with combined allied forces.

2). Nobody is going to use nuclear weapons.

3). US Is not attacking Iran, pulling troops out of Afghanistan etc.. because it wants to focus on China.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Hi SimaQian,

You know what, its payback time, let see the what the US, Australia, Uk and India will do, if China Prioritize country that is friendly with her. Maybe diplomatically she can offer the vaccine but they have to fall in line starting at the back

China used this tactics in 1958. during the taiwan strait crisis, taiwan asked the US navy to escort shipping across the strait based on "the mutual defence treaty between USA and ROC (taiwan), China opened fire on taiwanese ships, the US didnot respond.

sinking jap ships are not enough, China can also try to take Abe and Morrison out.

Out of all the countries that actually go out of their way to provoke China, the ones that sent their ships to SCS in support of the big boy should get most of China's attention.

These "little boy" countries really are the most annoying of all. They are like, when the school bully are doing the bullying, and they can always be found in the back ground goading the bully on with encouragement, knowing full way that they are safe whatever happened. They get their kicks out of someone getting hurt and all the time they are safe and loving every minutes at someone else's expenses.

I know Blitzo doesn't want to bring personal experiences into the discussion. But at times it is precisely these life experiences we are using to guide us in our decision making.

I've experienced these "little boys" in my time, and these are that ones I wanted to isolate and beat the crap out if them the most.

So if China can hurt these countries (let's face it, we can't do much with USA's antics anyway). Both economically, politically And militarily, the harder the better.

It also send a signal to warn others for future.

 

[duskseeker]

I don't know why are we ruling out nuclear war? If China wins in any measure, The USA and its goons will use it.