China's SCS Strategy Thread

[RobertC]

Here's the thing: as CCG and PAFMM put the squeeze on Philippines can USN do anything to prevent this? If not then the question in the mind of other ASEAN members will be "then what good is getting close to US?"

The effective course of action for the USN/USMC is

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China’s strategy is grounded in the Maoist tradition of insurgent warfare, resulting in a form of “people’s war at sea.” The ruling State Council reaffirmed this Maoist heritage in 2015 when it published a document outlining “China’s Military Strategy.” This has three crucial implications for the struggle for nautical freedom. One, insurgent warfare is protracted warfare. No one should expect a quick victory. Two, Beijing relies on irregular means and methods to get its way. Rather than bully Southeast Asian states with the big stick of conventional military force, it harnesses a host of paramilitary or nonmilitary implements—the coast guard, a maritime militia embedded in the fishing fleet, and merchant shipping—as its tools of choice. Beijing backs them up with regular forces from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy, Air Force, and Rocket Force—putting rival claimants on notice that China will prevail should an encounter come to blows.

And three, in operational terms, China is staging what Wylie called a “cumulative” campaign that refrains from “sequential” operations characteristic of open warfare. In other words, rather than repeatedly hammer away at foes with massed forces until they can no longer resist, Chinese commanders spread the field. They strive to win lots of small-scale tactical confrontations, dispersed in time and geographic space. Many minor results, they hope, will add up to something major over time.

On a related note, the USN/USMC is having multiple failure-to-launch difficulties with the Light Amphibious Warship enabler of its SCS strategy.

 

[Temstar]

The effective course of action for the USN/USMC is

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On a related note, the USN/USMC is having multiple failure-to-launch difficulties with the Light Amphibious Warship enabler of its SCS strategy.

I don't see any concrete steps being offered here. Of note in this particular situation the Nimitz CSG is close by but had no deterrence on CCS and PAFMM. I would put this down to the fact that in the 2016 stand off the USN backed off and thus displayed its paper tiger nature.

 

[Biscuits]

I refuse to accept the narrative of "America is invinsible and threaten anyone to obey". Duterte would have died 20 times. The Philipine thing is Marcos cooperating willfully or corruption involved. Either way they had agency to choose and they made a choice.


Exactly. Just like American base it cannot be undone as a leverage. Fortressing Scarborough shore cannot be undone. Doing so is making same mistaks as Philipine. The retaliation should stay on economic side. This way at anytime they change their mind the situation is reversed. Never copy someone who is less skilled than you.

I mean, it is as @manqiangrexue says. The more corruption within a system, the more it benefits a rich country that would be willing to splurge to buy out politicians. US is the world's 2nd largest economy and unlike China they have no qualms about increasing corruption in other countries to buy politicians.

But there are real limits to this approach as well. Generally money doesn't buy long term loyalty. And using the corrupt also means that you get less mileage out of the partnerships.

 

[RobertC]

I don't see any concrete steps being offered here.

The USMC already understood You Have to Be There and responded with its Force Design 2030, a swing away from its traditional amphibious ships and operations. However, as described in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China's post-reform military

has attempted to change the status quo through low intensity conflicts in the maritime domain. In order to avoid war and create a favorable posture, China uses the PLA Navy as a deterrent force, while at the same time utilizing the CCG law enforcement agency and the maritime militia to manage the intensity of the dispute so that it does not lead to armed conflict, and exert pressure on the adversary, thereby gradually expanding China’s rights and interests.

As described in the RFA article you cited, the CCG and maritime militia executed the Gray Zone operations assigned to them

Ibid: First, the maritime militia, taking advantage of its large number and equipment, is primarily tasked with asserting maritime rights and interests—activities which are difficult to coordinate and carry out by each respective actor. Secondly, the maritime militia plays a mediating role between the military, administrative organizations, and the civilian sector. In addition, compared to the CCG and the PLA, maritime militia units play a role in shallow waters, can operate smaller and more mobile vessels, and can conduct a wide range of surveillance activities with many fishing vessels. The Chinese government may believe that mobilizing the maritime militia can control the escalation of a crisis, rein in the adversary, avoid military skirmishes, and expand China’s effective control.

The USN/USMC has no effective response, military or otherwise, to these operations. Neither does Japan, Australia, et al. With the largest navy, coast guard and maritime fleets the SCS is just that: South China Sea.

 

[antiterror13]

Any major war in the Middle East between Iran and Israel with US support is going to rope in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf States, sooner or later.

Once that happens, the global oil market is going to suffer from massive waves of tsunami, since most of the oil wells, oil refinery plants and port facilities in the region would become legitimate targets for all the forces involved in the conflict.

In this context, China does have cordial relations with Russia and Venezuela, both of which are the largest oil producers in the world. Hence, at least China has one less problem to worry about sourcing oil.

However, China's current Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) capacity can only last around 50 days. That is barely more than 1 month-worth of oil stockpile, and still way, way below that of the safe level set by the International Energy Agency, i.e. 90 days (3 months)-worth of oil reserve stockpile.

For comparison, the US' SPR can last around 150 days (5 months), and Japan's SPR can last a whooping 220 days (more than 7 months). So I think China has a ton of work to do to safeguard her oil resource security.

I believe China's current Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) capacity would last minimum 90 days ... well during emergency there will be rationing and the demand will drop significantly, so in theory it will go much more than 90 days, also China also produce huge of oil, more than 4M bbl per day .. and will keep producing during emergency, even more

Where did you get that China's SPR would last 50 days .. the target was 90 days by 2020. And China bought oil like no tomorrow during covid when the oil price is super cheap

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Japan obviously need more SPR as Japan practically produce no oil

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I believe China's current Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) capacity would last minimum 90 days ... well during emergency there will be rationing and the demand will drop significantly, so in theory it will go much more than 90 days, also China also produce huge of oil, more than 4M bbl per day .. and will keep producing during emergency, even more

Where did you get that China's SPR would last 50 days .. the target was 90 days by 2020. And China bought oil like no tomorrow during covid when the oil price is super cheap

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Japan obviously need more SPR as Japan practically produce no oil

Hmm... then the SPR value that I got is outdated, then...

Since there are also mentions I saw on Baidu which claimed that the increased usage of oil over the past couple of years and decades thanks to China's non-stop growth and development means that the original estimate of 90-days worth of SPR stockpile may no longer be reliable. Perhaps 50 days is a bit of a stretch, but I think you get the idea.

 

[TK3600]

Hmm... then the SPR value that I got is outdated, then...

Since there are also mentions I saw on Baidu which claimed that the increased usage of oil over the past couple of years and decades thanks to China's non-stop growth and development means that the original estimate of 90-days worth of SPR stockpile may no longer be reliable. Perhaps 50 days is a bit of a stretch, but I think you get the idea.

You must account for growth of EV since 2019 as well.

 

[Minm]

Any major war in the Middle East between Iran and Israel with US support is going to rope in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf States, sooner or later.

Once that happens, the global oil market is going to suffer from massive waves of tsunami, since most of the oil wells, oil refinery plants and port facilities in the region would become legitimate targets for all the forces involved in the conflict.

In this context, China does have cordial relations with Russia and Venezuela, both of which are the largest oil producers in the world. Hence, at least China has one less problem to worry about sourcing oil.

However, China's current Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) capacity can only last around 50 days. That is barely more than 1 month-worth of oil stockpile, and still way, way below that of the safe level set by the International Energy Agency, i.e. 90 days (3 months)-worth of oil reserve stockpile.

For comparison, the US' SPR can last around 150 days (5 months), and Japan's SPR can last a whooping 220 days (more than 7 months). So I think China has a ton of work to do to safeguard her oil resource security.

Any future middle East war won't involve an American occupation, they're not that stupid. It would probably be a Libya style destruction campaign after which they leave the country in ruins. If you want to draw American soldiers in, it would have to be an attack on a treaty ally. The only one I can see is another Korean war or a Russian attack on the Baltics, either of which would be doomed without Chinese participation.

The best place for a proxy war is as far away from Chinese interests as possible. ASEAN is China's biggest trading partner so any war in Asia, especially one that threatens shipping, would be extremely damaging. West Asia and South America provide important commodities. The region that matters least economically is Africa. If you want to cause a problem for the West, a war in North Africa would be it. Give weapons to Algeria to take on Morocco

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

According to this western oriented Filipino-Iranian analyst, Richard Heydarian, the recently announced EDCA agreement between the U.S. and the Philippines is a hallmark of a new golden age of their bilateral relationship under the current Marcos Jr. regime just as Duterte had a golden relationship with China during his time as Philippine President.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[HighGround]

According to this western oriented Filipino-Iranian analyst, Richard Heydarian, the recently announced EDCA agreement between the U.S. and the Philippines is a hallmark of a new golden age of their bilateral relationship under the current Marcos Jr. regime just as Duterte had a golden relationship with China during his time as Philippine President.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Is he a good analyst in your opinion?