China's SCS Strategy Thread

[texx1]

This post is a different tune from #6,737, which is much more sensible. From that post, we see that you understand it's not that the PRC didn't dare but it was its kindness in showing restraint to clearly inferior foes, which wasn't appreciated. Chinese culture reserves no glory for picking on a smaller weaker opponent (within a reasonable red line) while Western culture basically says to beat up all the small people to show the world how tough you are.

Culture like almost everything else needs to change in order to better serve different needs. Beholden to one's culture norm when it could potentially impede the accomplishment of a nation's geopolitical object is counterproductive. The repeated restraint and passivity of PRC (whether in SCS or tibet) didn't really brought much dividend. China should modify its thinking and show more appreciation towards the rule of jungles when engaging in geopolitics. Beating up small power clearly has a deterrence effect. And i wouldn't worry about bogging down like US since the punitive Sino-Vietnam war demonstrated quite clearly PRC knows when to quit.

You clearly know why the causality figures were withheld; don't make it sound like China lost 50 people and were scared to fight. ASEAN is made of Asian countries that understand Asian values; they know what China can do to them and could have done to India but they also know that China doesn't use its force easily so they balance those. This is far from thinking that China is a paper tiger; paper tigers are known for incompetence, not for reserve. Not a single one of them believes that they could defeat China, but they do think that they can do things without touching the threshold of Chinese military action or even diplomatic attack.

I used dare because I believe Chinese leadership showed weakness when dealing with Indian's incursion. I can understand and even support the need for restraint if it was an isolated incident. However, last year's border conflict was a second violation. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

In my understanding, paper tiger means something that appears to be powerful, but actually ineffective. For arguably the second most powerful country in the world, PRC's border was violated twice by India without serious consequences, not to mention the monetary damage Chinese firms suffered from Indian ban at the time. I am sure you and I disagree on whether PRC's conduct was effective. As such let's just agree to disagree.

My point has always been that PRC's one sided restraint contributed heavily towards many Chinese neighbours' calculation that they can initiate actions to damage Chinese interests. After all, they wouldn't really lose anything since PRC never seriously retaliates. Why wouldn't ASEAN nations not gamble on adventurism when the perceived risk is so low?

Under what circumstances? Because we have already seen that the US wouldn't take on the Chinese military even if it expands in the SCS and this is what this thread is about.

US didn't issue warnings that it would take on PLA when PRC was expanding islands in SCS initially. But it did ambiguously said it would keep defensive pledges for its ASEAN allies. Personally, I think US has a higher chance of getting involved over Taiwan than some SCS islands illegally held by ASEAN allies. Would it be better and lower risk for PRC to test US commitment to allies in SCS instead of Taiwan?

As for taking on US, I don't think current PRC leaders would start a military conflict with US even over Taiwan until it has significantly expanded its nuclear arsenal and improved its survivable second strike capability. If there's a war with US, I have no doubt US would use everything in its power to make sure China would never challenge US dominance again.

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

Culture like almost everything else needs to change in order to better serve different needs. Beholden to one's culture norm when it could potentially impede the accomplishment of a nation's geopolitical object is counterproductive. The repeated restraint and passivity of PRC (whether in SCS or tibet) didn't really brought much dividend. China should modify its thinking and show more appreciation towards the rule of jungles when engaging in geopolitics. Beating up small power clearly has a deterrence effect. And i wouldn't worry about bogging down like US since the punitive Sino-Vietnam war demonstrated quite clearly PRC knows when to quit.



I used dare because I believe Chinese leadership showed weakness when dealing with Indian's incursion. I can understand and even support the need for restraint if it was an isolated incident. However, last year's border conflict was a second violation. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

In my understanding, paper tiger means something that appears to be powerful, but actually ineffective. For arguably the second most powerful country in the world, PRC's border was violated twice by India without serious consequences, not to mention the monetary damage Chinese firms suffered from Indian ban at the time. I am sure you and I disagree on whether PRC's conduct was effective. As such let's just agree to disagree.

My point has always been that PRC's one sided restraint contributed heavily towards many Chinese neighbours' calculation that they can initiate actions to damage Chinese interests. After all, they wouldn't really lose anything since PRC never seriously retaliates. Why wouldn't ASEAN nations not gamble on adventurism when the perceived risk is so low?



US didn't issue warnings that it would take on PLA when PRC was expanding islands in SCS initially. But it did ambiguously said it would keep defensive pledges for its ASEAN allies. Personally, I think US has a higher chance of getting involved over Taiwan than some SCS islands illegally held by ASEAN allies. Would it be better and lower risk for PRC to test US commitment to allies in SCS instead of Taiwan?

As for taking on US, I don't think current PRC leaders would start a military conflict with US even over Taiwan until it has significantly expanded its nuclear arsenal and improved its survivable second strike capability. If there's a war with US, I have no doubt US would use everything in its power to make sure China would never challenge US dominance again.

You're view points is clearly taken from a western perspective who has an axe to grind against the country you were either born at or your family chose immigrated to by choice which would show such a myopic views and oversimplification of all things military affair. I am sorry man, but am glad and more than happy that the Chinese leadership isn't short sighted and are not easily rattled or baited to fight a war against a foe it shouldn't fight against. China fighting against India has nothing to gain and more to lose. India's bluster and frustrations can be trace back from the beat down it received from the PLA back in 1962 war and ever since that beat down, India has been itching and smarting to have another chance so that they can rectify another battle with China lol..They lost in the economic reform front, they have lost in the political stability and system front. India has nothing on China except for their official language which is English adopted from their previous colonial master.

Perhaps you ought to ask the Libyans, Serbians, Syrians, Afghanistan etc. What they think about the U.S. ask them if they fear the almighty U.S. you'll have your answers in a way that shows how misguided your theories are. Your advocacy for the use of military force and the justification to use force ought to give any serious military person aneurysm am paraphrasing an infamous statement by Gen.Colin Powell upon hearing then U.N. ambassador Madeline Albright boldly proposing the use of U.S. military to intervene in Bosnia circa 1994 - 1995.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Culture like almost everything else needs to change in order to better serve different needs. Beholden to one's culture norm when it could potentially impede the accomplishment of a nation's geopolitical object is counterproductive. The repeated restraint and passivity of PRC (whether in SCS or tibet) didn't really brought much dividend. China should modify its thinking and show more appreciation towards the rule of jungles when engaging in geopolitics. Beating up small power clearly has a deterrence effect. And i wouldn't worry about bogging down like US since the punitive Sino-Vietnam war demonstrated quite clearly PRC knows when to quit.

What exactly do you want the PLAN to do in the SCS that it isn't? It has built islands, defended them against FONOPS; it has confiscated and even sunk by ramming foreign fishing vessels. What do you want to see happen? The PRC doesn't want an image of it ruling Asia by using excessive power whenever a small neighbor is out of line; to the Chinese, it is a sign of helplessness and lack of flexible thinking to resort to overwhelming force on a small opponent. Maybe you don't agree with this culture but to many, it makes sense and China is only emerging from an era where it had to thread lightly to avoid problems.

I used dare because I believe Chinese leadership showed weakness when dealing with Indian's incursion. I can understand and even support the need for restraint if it was an isolated incident. However, last year's border conflict was a second violation. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Dare indicates that they were driven by fear of consequences. If they were simply being too nice and showing too much faith, that's more like soft-hearted, and I personally also think China should have dealt India some vicious blows but who knows what they agreed to in negotiations.

In my understanding, paper tiger means something that appears to be powerful, but actually ineffective.

Correct, because he is made of paper and does not have the power to be effective. If you picked the wrong fight and swung at a professional fighter, it doesn't make him a paper tiger if he showed restraint by dodging a few times then pushing you back without serious harm instead of putting you in a wheelchair.

For arguably the second most powerful country in the world, PRC's border was violated twice by India without serious consequences, not to mention the monetary damage Chinese firms suffered from Indian ban at the time.

Well, over 20 Indians died and they were humiliated. Chinese firms should never invest in India in the first place but it's not a military matter.

I am sure you and I disagree on whether PRC's conduct was effective. As such let's just agree to disagree.

Maybe not. India's a pesky little bugger who really doesn't know its place. To be effective probably means to make it so they don't dare start trouble again at least for a decade or 2. We'll see how it went; I wouldn't call it effective but I'm also unsure if it would have been better to beat the crap out of them. I have faith that the CCP did much more thorough analyses.

My point has always been that PRC's one sided restraint contributed heavily towards many Chinese neighbours' calculation that they can initiate actions to damage Chinese interests. After all, they wouldn't really lose anything since PRC never seriously retaliates. Why wouldn't ASEAN nations not gamble on adventurism when the perceived risk is so low?

I think when they do gamble, the Chinese coast guard has sunk their taken ships before. They certainly haven't tried any military solution against China. I wouldn't say China's doing poorly in the SCS at all.

US didn't issue warnings that it would take on PLA when PRC was expanding islands in SCS initially. But it did ambiguously said it would keep defensive pledges for its ASEAN allies. Personally, I think US has a higher chance of getting involved over Taiwan than some SCS islands illegally held by ASEAN allies. Would it be better and lower risk for PRC to test US commitment to allies in SCS instead of Taiwan?

Well, for better or worse, China's doing so right now.

As for taking on US, I don't think current PRC leaders would start a military conflict with US even over Taiwan until it has significantly expanded its nuclear arsenal and improved its survivable second strike capability.

The nuclear arsenal is unknown and it would depend on how the PRC was challenged. If Taiwan declared independence and the US is in support, there is no choice but to fight with everything we've got. The question is whether the US would dare. But for lesser insults, weapons sales, visits, transits, etc... China wouldn't start a fight over them, not yet and likely not in the foreseeable future as China continues to outpace the US in development.

If there's a war with US, I have no doubt US would use everything in its power to make sure China would never challenge US dominance again.

If. The biggest question is if they would dare at all. But certainly, I hope the if China hasn't gotten its nuclear numbers up to MAD, it is getting there.

 

[voyager1]

Maybe not. India's a pesky little bugger who really doesn't know its place. To be effective probably means to make it so they don't dare start trouble again at least for a decade or 2. We'll see how it went; I wouldn't call it effective but I'm also unsure if it would have been better to beat the crap out of them.

You see thats my issue with China's response. India has repeatedly demonstrated that it would strike at China without notice if it smells just a bit of weakness. To me, that sounds like an adversary. That China is allowing India to attack it repeatedly without imposing serious costs is unacceptable.

If Taiwan declared independence and the US is in support, there is no choice but to fight with everything we've got. The question is whether the US would dare

I think the US-Taiwan situation is the same as the UK-Suez crisis. To me, if US doednt help Taiwan that would send shock waves to the entire world that the "rules-based international order" is no more and that the US is abdicating.

You may call it as non-important but with the amount of effort that US has invested with Taiwan is would be a devasting loss of face for the US.

What exactly do you want the PLAN to do in the SCS that it isn't? It has built islands, defended them against FONOPS; it has confiscated and even sunk by ramming foreign fishing vessels. What do you want to see happen?

More island building, more airfields, more bases, more weaponry, start militarising the islands a lot. ASEAN has been dragging its feet in negotiating the Code of Conduct with China because they might think that the US is going to protect them and give them leverage.

Time for China to unilaterally start taking actions to break the current status quo in order to force ASEAN to come back to the table.

The nuclear arsenal is unknown and it would depend on how the PRC was challenged

That China's nuclear arsenal is brought so much means that its deterrence value is not that high. Do you see people questioning and doubting the US and Russia number of nuclear weapons and their ability for a complete MAD.

That China is doubted so much and from so many sources means that this is strategic failure on deterrence and that it should start working on it immediately.

Nobody says that they need 10 000 nukes, but their current number is far far too low to establish credible deterrence

 

[manqiangrexue]

You see thats my issue with China's response. India has repeatedly demonstrated that it would strike at China without notice if it smells just a bit of weakness. To me, that sounds like an adversary. That China is allowing India to attack it repeatedly without imposing serious costs is unacceptable.

The recent incident is the biggest, as it included over 20 Indian casualties and serious negotiations in which things had to have been made clear to them. In Doklam, China kinda just moved in serious artillery forces and the Indians peaced out. So after this incident, let's see if India still has adventurism left in it.

I think the US-Taiwan situation is the same as the UK-Suez crisis. To me, if US doednt help Taiwan that would send shock waves to the entire world that the "rules-based international order" is no more and that the US is abdicating.

You may call it as non-important but with the amount of effort that US has invested with Taiwan is would be a devasting loss of face for the US.

Absolutely true, but the question is if the US prefers to lose face or lose face and life. An off-ramp would be the best if the ROC made some rash action on its own initiating the conflict so the US could just call them idiots and that they can no longer be protected because they didn't stick to the plan.

More island building, more airfields, more bases, more weaponry, start militarising the islands a lot. ASEAN has been dragging its feet in negotiating the Code of Conduct with China because they might think that the US is going to protect them and give them leverage.

Time for China to unilaterally start taking actions to break the current status quo in order to force ASEAN to come back to the table.

China's currently doing all of that, but asking for more is an endless request. When a Code of Conduct is finalized, China will likely have to limit itself too. Currently, China's doing pretty good controlling the situation in the SCS.

That China's nuclear arsenal is brought so much means that its deterrence value is not that high. Do you see people questioning and doubting the US and Russia number of nuclear weapons and their ability for a complete MAD.

That China is doubted so much and from so many sources means that this is strategic failure on deterrence and that it should start working on it immediately.

China's strategy was to spend as little as possible on its nuclear forces so it could save its resources on its conventional military development, because nuclear forces are for Armageddon-level fighting but they're no good for little border/sea territory conflicts and the latter 2 are where China does salami slicing. That's why China preferred to keep a lower but undisclosed number of nukes so that the doubt itself serves as deterrence.

Nobody says that they need 10 000 nukes, but their current number is far far too low to establish credible deterrence

What's the current number? It's still not made public. In the modern day, China's resources are much greater and its nuclear forces are keeping up with the advent of DF-41 and DF-ZF and the doubt against whether China's nuclear arsenal could deal MAD has never been more frightening for the US, although it is still doubt. Maybe one day, China will choose to release its nuclear numbers and decide to use intimidation rather than doubt as its main deterrence but when that happens will have to be left to the CCP. One thing is for sure and that is when/if China makes this change and also maybe rescinds its no first use policy, it will shake the military world.

 

[texx1]

You're view points is clearly taken from a western perspective who has an axe to grind against the country you were either born at or your family chose immigrated to by choice which would show such a myopic views and oversimplification of all things military affair. I am sorry man, but am glad and more than happy that the Chinese leadership isn't short sighted and are not easily rattled or baited to fight a war against a foe it shouldn't fight against. China fighting against India has nothing to gain and more to lose. India's bluster and frustrations can be trace back from the beat down it received from the PLA back in 1962 war and ever since that beat down, India has been itching and smarting to have another chance so that they can rectify another battle with China lol..They lost in the economic reform front, they have lost in the political stability and system front. India has nothing on China except for their official language which is English adopted from their previous colonial master.

It's good to know for some, pointing out problems is same as having an axe to grind. It's a shame really how quick things turn personal on internet forum isn't it.

Perhaps you ought to ask the Libyans, Serbians, Syrians, Afghanistan etc. What they think about the U.S. ask them if they fear the almighty U.S. you'll have your answers in a way that shows how misguided your theories are. Your advocacy for the use of military force and the justification to use force ought to give any serious military person aneurysm am paraphrasing an infamous statement by Gen.Colin Powell upon hearing then U.N. ambassador Madeline Albright boldly proposing the use of U.S. military to intervene in Bosnia circa 1994 - 1995.

Their people might not fear US. But Libya, Syria and Afghanistan are more or less in effect fractured countries that don't pose any meaningful threat to US geopolitical interest in the area. On the contrary, these broken countries serve as convenient excuses for US military presence expanding the balance of power in US favour.

 

[voyager1]

Their people might not fear US. But Libya, Syria and Afghanistan are more or less in effect fractured countries that don't pose any meaningful threat to US geopolitical interest in the area

Good point. Let me add that people who dont respect or fear the US military (or diplomacy) are mostly in huge trouble.
Russia is a disaster economy, Turkey is trying to bark but its economic prospects is going down, Iran is down, NK is full sanctioned and economy is very bad, Syria a disaster, Iraq a disaster, Afghanistan a disaster, Libya a disaster.

Did you notice anything here, all countries who dont respect it are kept down by all means. Not a single country from that list can credibly say that it is not afraid of the US (Russia included, see their paranoia about NATO and encirclement)

The only country which can resist this is China, and even it faces a lot of pressure. So yes, superpowers are first feared and then loved

 

[texx1]

What exactly do you want the PLAN to do in the SCS that it isn't? It has built islands, defended them against FONOPS; it has confiscated and even sunk by ramming foreign fishing vessels. What do you want to see happen? The PRC doesn't want an image of it ruling Asia by using excessive power whenever a small neighbor is out of line; to the Chinese, it is a sign of helplessness and lack of flexible thinking to resort to overwhelming force on a small opponent. Maybe you don't agree with this culture but to many, it makes sense and China is only emerging from an era where it had to thread lightly to avoid problems.

I have similar ideas like voyager1 purposed, more aggressive patrols, more strict enforcement, more island reclamation. Don't be afraid to fire warning shots when necessary. Potentially, PRC could also threaten to remove the old Filipino landing ship occupying second thomas shoal (仁爱礁) if the next government after Duterte becoming too chummy with US again. Like you implied, PRC has developed to a stage that's under intense scrutiny from western adversaries. Bidding its time and treading lightly might have worked when US and its allies didn't view china as much of a threat. This is no longer the case. Hence, PRC's behaviors and actions should also change with new circumstances.

Well, over 20 Indians died and they were humiliated. Chinese firms should never invest in India in the first place but it's not a military matter.

Maybe not. India's a pesky little bugger who really doesn't know its place. To be effective probably means to make it so they don't dare start trouble again at least for a decade or 2. We'll see how it went; I wouldn't call it effective but I'm also unsure if it would have been better to beat the crap out of them. I have faith that the CCP did much more thorough analyses.

The uneven withdrawal still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. PRC was far too lenient.

The nuclear arsenal is unknown and it would depend on how the PRC was challenged. If Taiwan declared independence and the US is in support, there is no choice but to fight with everything we've got. The question is whether the US would dare. But for lesser insults, weapons sales, visits, transits, etc... China wouldn't start a fight over them, not yet and likely not in the foreseeable future as China continues to outpace the US in development.

I have my doubts that PLA would fire on US military unless US fires on Chinese military first. The most likely scenario regarding Taiwan independence would be PLA attacking Taiwanese and possible US allies' assets freely while avoiding targeting US military directly. In short similar to how PLA acted in first and second Taiwan strait crisis.

 

[weig2000]

Good point. Let me add that people who dont respect or fear the US military (or diplomacy) are mostly in huge trouble.
Russia is a disaster economy, Turkey is trying to bark but its economic prospects is going down, Iran is down, NK is full sanctioned and economy is very bad, Syria a disaster, Iraq a disaster, Afghanistan a disaster, Libya a disaster.

Did you notice anything here, all countries who dont respect it are kept down by all means. Not a single country from that list can credibly say that it is not afraid of the US (Russia included, see their paranoia about NATO and encirclement)

The only country which can resist this is China, and even it faces a lot of pressure. So yes, superpowers are first feared and then loved

Good points. That's why the US ruling class is now obsessed with China. It's China, China, and China for them! LOL.

Three fronts the US can exert pressure on China: tech, dollar, and military. The US has levers in all three, but each would be a nuclear option if it wants to apply them fully.

Tech - China's pivotal role in global tech supply chain and its huge domestic market make it very difficult to decouple overnight. They try to do it bits and pieces. But that tends to be not very effective and will give China time to adjust and develop its own supply chain, causing the strategy to backfire.

Dollar - China is the largest US bond holders (or slightly behind Japan) and the world's largest trading nation. It's effectively a key stakeholder of the dollar system. China is much more important for the dollar hegemony than Saudi Arabia. Expelling China from the dollar system will not only weaken the dollar hegemony, it will also force China to establish an alternative currency system competing with the dollar. Dollar is now on shaky grounds due to the US's abuse of it dollar privilege. It would be terrible prospect for the US if China is forced to do so.

Military - China is not a threat to the US security, but it's competing with the US for the military dominance in Asia and West Pacific, the growth center of the global economy. It's gaining grounds against the US and the US fears it will lose its current edge in 10-15 years. It is staging contests to demonstrate its supposed strength and presence by doing FONOPs on SCS, provoking on Taiwan issue and pledging support to its allies/vassals. But it's also careful not to overstep its challenges for fear of Chinese retaliation, particularly wrt Taiwan.

None of the countries in your list can withstand US pressure in all three fronts of trade (including tech, but basic trade embargo itself is harsh enough for these countries; trade is utterly ineffective and counterproductive for dealing with China, as Trump has proved), dollar and military. Russia is somewhat an exception since Russia can go toe-to-toe against the US militarily. But it's a single-dimensional player in this regard. China needs to gradually play a lead role to create an alternative system for all countries but particularly those fearful of US sanctions.

 

[Nutrient]

My point has always been that PRC's one sided restraint contributed heavily towards many Chinese neighbours' calculation that they can initiate actions to damage Chinese interests.

It's not true that China never retaliates. What do you think Australia is getting now from China, hugs and kisses?

After all, they wouldn't really lose anything since PRC never seriously retaliates. Why wouldn't ASEAN nations not gamble on adventurism when the perceived risk is so low?

In the Korean war, China showed what it could do, even against the strongest opposition -- and even while the Middle Kingdom was recovering from a devastating civil war. China doesn't have to prove it again.