Defeating China's Anti-Access Strategy: The US Perspective Part

Status
Not open for further replies.
asif iqbal

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
US stratedgy in the Pacific pivot means access denial

Chinese stratedgy is sea control

US will rely on every asset of the army, air forces and navy to achieve overwhelming force in numbers, in the case where they can they will add in assets from regional allies mainly JMSDF

US is integrating all it's assets into one fighting force, so a air force aircraft can take instruction from a warship and attack or a submarine can get instructions from a AWACS and attack a target, the word is interoperability between all branches of the militray

Key difference is US has many overseas commitments, China does not, so they can laid down a vast fleet of thier own, with a rising warship fleet China has launched more than 30 warships in the last 5 years the numbers are staggering from both sides
 
P

Player 0

Junior Member
AssassinsMace said:
How do economic figures have to do with anti-access strategy? It's sort of like the blogger saying he's leaving out the politics of the US and China going to war. Oh I understand that economics does play a role but find it strange one can take the politics out of war when it does play a role. I can see many political reasons how the anti-access strategy of the blogger fails because it doesn't account politics. One example is where he breaks his own rule by believing all the countries that have territorial disputes with China will all join in with the US. Why would that be a question? Because some of the supposed allies of the US can't protect themselves with all the advanced toys the US has so why would they pick a fight with China when they can be easily attacked. The blogger's strategy doesn't account how is the US going to protect every ally that will join in when they can't match China's military might. Then they have to account that anything short of outright victory by the US and control of China is bad news for them when dealing with China in the future. The blogger's strategy doesn't seem to deal with occupation of China. He also suggests that all this is pre-emptive by the US. Like China isn't going to protect its assets knowing of an impending US attack? If it doesn't work, all these allies will be dealing with a very angry China being isolated like the Soviet Union. And lets not forget the use of nukes. How many people believe the US won't use nukes on China from the start? The same excuse for using them on Japan applies here. Nothing has changed since. Americans don't take casualties well even if they inflict more on the enemy. How are the neighbors going to feel especially China has nukes. If the US wants to take out China's nukes so they don't represent a threat, they're going to have to use a lot of them and quickly. Try to contain that fall out. US limited nuclear strike... China still has nukes to nuke it neighbors at least and they would be legitimate nuclear targets for allying with the US. You can't avoid the politics of war because it plays the most important role.

Every time I see a thread about someone vs. China, China always seems to be restricted on what it can do or have. The other side can account for the future but China can only have with what it has now. If it were so easy to take on China like everyone makes it, why don't they do it now? Every day that passes makes it harder. You can have as many cheerleaders showing how the US will win on paper all you want. But the sole reason why no dares to put their money where their mouth is are the unknowns that are not on paper. All the US's advanced toys protects the US but not all the allies who will according to paper apparently follow the US blindly without question. They'll sacrifice for the US that won't get touched half way around the world. All these strategies don't seem to account for the consequences China's neighbors will have to suffer if the US doesn't outright win and occupy China. This Air Sea strategy doesn't change the Chinese government. What results is the neighbors have to deal with a China situation that's a million times worse than before. Sound familiar? It's the same irresponsible short-sightedness of Obama and Hillary in thinking the Arab Spring was so fantastic for the US.
Click to expand...

Not to mention Afghanistan's own problem with militants that have had serious repression for Pakistan, India, Central Asia and Russia, who now face Jihadism and drug cartels. China would be that for Korea, Japan, Singapore, everyone in the region. You might as well start a new war in the Balkans and let that chaos erupt in Europe just to put the final nail in the global economy.
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Here's a paper that claims the US's Air-Sea Battle strategy now includes unprovoked nuclear first strike on China. Translation: Air-Sea has already failed but they don't want to admit to it so they're just going with it's just simpler to attack China with nukes and still call it Air-Sea Battle strategy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
shen

shen

Senior Member
let's get the terminologies straight. Air-Sea battle = imperialism under limited budget. anti-access strategy = don't mess with me on my home turf.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
AssassinsMace said:
Here's a paper that claims the US's Air-Sea Battle strategy now includes unprovoked nuclear first strike on China. Translation: Air-Sea has already failed but they don't want to admit to it so they're just going with it's just simpler to attack China with nukes and still call it Air-Sea Battle strategy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me, Amitai Etzioni, from Yale?

But of course those would be his conclusions.

Believe me, no serious military planner, or executive, or commander is considering any first strike nuclear attack on China.

Now, an unprovoked surprise attack by China that decimated a Carrier Strike Force with nuclear weapons and killed 10,000 American might trigger one. But no conventional loss in a Air-Sea Battle that is a part of say, a conflict over Taiwan, would.

Of course planners have scenarios for every conceivable situation. The Chinese do, the Russians do, the Brits do, Japanese, India, Germany...all of them. But that does not make it a part of public or governmental policy to proceed to implement thewm.
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Well that's why I said "claims." But it just goes to show there's a recognition like I mentioned before that anything short of using nukes Air-Sea is not going be enough. It helps protect the US but not the allies that border China the US needs as the blogger states in order to successfully contain China. So if the US has no plan to take 100% control of China or use enough nukes to render China harmless, the allies are going to be suffering the consequences of a many times worse China with nukes than perceived before. And the best chance for Air-Sea to work is an unprovoked surprise attack which is going to be hard to hide something only conventional like that.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
AssassinsMace said:
Well that's why I said "claims." But it just goes to show there's a recognition like I mentioned before that anything short of using nukes Air-Sea is not going be enough. It helps protect the US but not the allies that border China the US needs as the blogger states in order to successfully contain China.
Click to expand...
I think that in conjunction with the Japanese, the Koreans, the Australians, and other nations with decent navies, Air-Sea will work and be able to deter, and if necessary, defeat the PLAN. It will not defeat the PRC, nor is it intended to.

For a nation like Taiwan, where it is less and less likely that there will be a confrontation, or Vietnam, or the Philippines (unless Japan makes good on its commitment), it is less likely to work, particularly within the 1st island chain.
 
shen

shen

Senior Member
Jeff Head said:
I think that in conjunction with the Japanese, the Koreans, the Australians, and other nations with decent navies, Air-Sea will work and be able to deter, and if necessary, defeat the PLAN. It will not defeat the PRC, nor is it intended to.

For a nation like Taiwan, where it is less and less likely that there will be a confrontation, or Vietnam, or the Philippines (unless Japan makes good on its commitment), it is less likely to work, particularly within the 1st island chain.
Click to expand...

you clearly don't understand what Air Sea Battle is if you think the aim is just to defeat PLAN not PRC. I highly suggest you read the article linked AssassinMace, and watch this video
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The commentator in the video sums up Air Sea Battle against China, "it is going to be global, no holds barred, it is going to nasty". EVERYTHING is on the table in this strategy.
It is a dangerous doctrine. It is desperate strategy for a weakened hegemon.
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Jeff Head said:
I think that in conjunction with the Japanese, the Koreans, the Australians, and other nations with decent navies, Air-Sea will work and be able to deter, and if necessary, defeat the PLAN. It will not defeat the PRC, nor is it intended to.

For a nation like Taiwan, where it is less and less likely that there will be a confrontation, or Vietnam, or the Philippines (unless Japan makes good on its commitment), it is less likely to work, particularly within the 1st island chain.
Click to expand...

That's why you can't take the politics out of war. Just South Korea and Japan facing the ire of China being attacked for what? I don't think so unless the US is committed to invading and controlling China which Air-Sea doesn't address. The Philippines has acted more aggressive regarding territorial disputes. If it was North Korea, it would be made into an international incident not brushed under the rug. The Philippines claims Indonesia has done worse than they have when it comes to killing people over territory. So focusing on China is political. That's why short of the US occupying and taking control over China or using enough nukes to render China harmless, Air-Sea won't win anything for the US. South Korea and Japan will face an angry China that has been attacked most likely by the US first, the only way Air-Sea will be most effective, that can cause them a lot of trouble and the whole region will be destabilized much worse than anything now that alarms the US about China. You think Japan and South Korea want that? Air-Sea doesn't render China's military useless. It's purpose is to render China's anti-access strategy useless.

Why will the US resort to nukes from the start which will make Air-Sea pointless? Like mentioned before there are only two options for the US to render China harmless. 100% occupation and control of China or using nukes. I read that in order to have an effective occupation force you need 10,000 soldiers for every 1 million people. That means around 14 million occupation troops to control China. After Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, I think countries around the world will know how to make occupation a huge headache for the US. There's no denying that Americans can't take casualties which will be larger than US has ever faced since the Civil War when it comes to China whether from the initial military battle and/or from occupation. Can the US pay for a 14 million soldier occupation force? That's why when it comes down to it nukes will be politically okay to use by Americans because it saves American lives just like how that was excuse used to bomb Japan. The fact is the chances of the rosy scenario that Air-Sea will find everything is slim at most. You had the might of NATO covering Kosovo and the Serbs were very effective in protecting their assets. China is bigger than Kosovo. That's why it will come down to nuking China from the start. It's short-sighted and why you can't take the politics out of the war because Japan and South Korea or whoever else is going suffering more than the US whether it comes from conventional or nuclear attack. That's what they're going to have to think about.
 
Last edited:
shen

shen

Senior Member
US Army declares war on US Navy and Air Force over Air Sea Battle.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


most funny quote "There go those irresponsible fools in the Navy and the Air Force, talking about mainland strikes. Why this would lead to horrible escalation, probably nuclear war. Why would we even consider these things?"

Air Sea Battle, if fully implemented will be the American Schlieffen Plan. By planning deep penetration decapitation strikes against the Chinese mainland, a skirmish on peripheral will quickly escalate to full blown nuclear war. Some fools squabbling over their share of budget within the US military are inadvertently planning the end of the humankind.

Brief historic background on the Sclieffen Plan. Pre-WWI Imperial German war plan that quickly escalated a regional conflict in the Balkan to a world war. When Imperial Germany was faced with a possible conflict on eastern border with Russia, the plan called for a quick attack through neutral Lower Countries against France, before fighting the slower mobilizing Russian. The attack brought France and Great Britain into the a conflict that otherwise could've been limited to eastern theater. Sclieffen Plan is the perfect example of an operational plan detached from larger strategic and political concerns. Now, the United States is set to repeat that mistake in Sea Air Battle.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top