As you said previously, the entire Korean Peninsula is essentially a huge littoral zone for Chinese submarines and aircraft.
The USN would have no choice but to enter this area, unless they wanted to abandon Korea.
Future PLAN naval and carrier operations
- Thread starter Tam
- Start date
As you said previously, the entire Korean Peninsula is essentially a huge littoral zone for Chinese submarines and aircraft.
The USN would have no choice but to enter this area, unless they wanted to abandon Korea.
I'll respond to this, because you don't understand the reasoning.
In a full scale conflict between the USA and China, if the fighting remains a naval-air conflict, China will LOSE as the US redeploys its entire navy and air force to the Western Pacific.
Since China knows this will happen, the Chinese leadership will NOT sit back passively waiting for this. Because if China loses, that leadership faces death or revolution. Same with Fatty Kim, who also realises that he faces death or revolution if China loses.
At that point, China needs a land "victory" against the USA, and the 2nd Infantry Division in Seoul is the only realistic option.
So the only thing that South Korea can offer that will change the minds of the Chinese/NK leadership is a "victory" over the USA.
That would mean the immediate termination of the SK-US security alliance and the full scale use of the South Korean military against the USA.
Since that is not going to happen, South Korea is going to face the full brunt of the combined Chinese and North Korean army. And South Korea knows that it can never "win" in such a land conflict. China does have the world's largest population, army and manufacturing sector, which could build a huge army in a total war situation.
---
In the battle between cheap Chinese ballistic missiles versus expensive SK missile defence, you know who is going to win. Don't even bother bringing it up. On the technology front, note that the NSF reported to congress that in 2019, China will be spending more on R&D than the USA.
---
Yes, China would want overall control of the Korean operation. But China would certainly hand back the Korean peninsula, because it doesn't want the headache of occupation and being seen as a colonial power. All China needs are the air and naval bases (located on the Southern coast of Koarea) which directly threaten Japanese/US bases on the Japanese Home Islands.
This is a joke. It is the classic bad war movie with a seriously contorted plot in which every single choice made by the hero is irrational and ridiculous.
It is also very much an A vs B discussion. Coincidentally, it also happens to have absolutely nothing to do with aircraft carriers.
So why are we continuing with this?
No, North Korea will wholeheartedly support China, if China decides to fight South Korea.
That is an absolute given, and your scenario where North Korea resists is simply wishful thinking.
Not enough people understand that this is the ruthless logic of regime survival for both China and North Korea. And too many American admirals are ignorant about what would happen.
And so what if South Korea can field a hi-tech army of half a million soldiers? South Korea is a SMALL isolated peninsula whose industrial capacity will be devastated in any war because the entire country is within range of China forces.
I also understand that the dark joke at some of the US-China conferences is that China has an excess male population of 40million. And China does have enough strategic depth and industrial capacity to field an absolutely huge hi-tech army. And that army will bleed US reinforcements and potentially conquer South Korea, given some time.
In that time, we can expect the US to pour in more soldiers/aircraft/ships into the Korean peninsula to prevent the conquest of South Korea by China.
Those aircraft and ships will not be available for operations elsewhere against China, and would have to operate right in the teeth of Chinese A2AD forces on the North Korean coastline. So we would see a rerun of the last Korean War, except that this time, China would have the capacity to win.
So what would be the political impact if say 20,000 US soldiers are marched into prisoner of war camps and become hostages?
The headlines will scream that China has beaten the USA.
And afterwards, most of the Japanese Home Islands are within range of Chinese A2AD forces operating in South Korea.
We would probably see a titanic struggle along the lines of the Napoleonic Wars, where French Army (China) was supreme on land, whilst the British Navy (USA) was supreme on the seas.
It's worth spending some time looking at the Napoleonic Wars and seeing how alliances cracked, neutrality was ignored, and former allies turned on each other.
It's also worth considering if China loses. Then we're looking at a re-run of Imperial Germany capitulating and the rise of Hitler who channelled the people's desire for vengeance.
But consider that this. The US was economically 3x bigger than Nazi Germany. In comparison, it is China that could be economically 3x bigger than the USA.
To repeat again, US Admirals are far too gung-ho about the US winning a war against China.
It's not a bad joke. It's history if you look at how previous wars started and ended.
And it is important for us to understand this, when we look at how China could use its aircraft carriers.
Sorry, but there's nothing in this discussion about how to avoid a war, etc., or even about how such a war has started. But we actually do have a rule against discussions of country A vs country B, as they get heated, ugly and stupid very fast.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
I have seldom used the word "stupid" to describe a post, but this one here really warrants it. So basically in order to divert attention away from a bigger lost (IE:Taiwan or the SCS), you are saying that China would initiate a diversion war against SK just to score some potential PR image ? Fat lot that is going to help when the public realized that.
Full scale use of South Korea millitary against the USA ? "Victory" over the USA ? Seriously ? At this point I am starting to think that you are raving here. If you are honestly expecting that SK can be coerce into initiating hostilities against the USA you got more than a few facts lost in your notebook.
The entire gist of your argument can be summed up as such: China can't win against the USA, so China is going to try its luck with SK just so it can look like it "won".
That is the most insane, illogical and ridiculous notion I have seen in a long while. I am not even going to bother with the rest of your post as it is the typical tirade of someone who had drunk the Chinese nationalism Kool-Aid one too many time often.
I really hope you’re not being serious right now. Do you seriously think that launching a massive diversionary attack on an otherwise neutral country is going to give the impression of victory? I don’t think the PLA or Chinese citizens will buy into this. Launching such an offensive will only dry the PLA of crucial resources needed for the PLAAF and PLANAF and logistics, not to mention create an international firestorm. The only way China can claim victory is by outright beating the US or pushing the war to a stalemate ... not by launching a ridiculous invasion. This is the reason why China has invested so much in their navy and Air Force and not so much in the ground force.
I don’t see how he is “drunk with Chinese nationalism Kool-Aid” ... presenting a far-fetched and unrealistic scenario does not mean Andrew is a ardent Chinese nationalist.
I think this is an appropriate double post, I think the recent discussion on this thread actually originated from the thread I am double posting from.
Indeed I am saying no to both capability and strategy.
Though if you want to debate capability vs intent, I will say that blindly looking at capability is objective to a degree but also out of context to another. The same forces used for an amphibious landing in Taiwan can be used for an amphibious landing in the Philippines, but China is not going to do the latter. The same forces used for an escorted/secured evacuation of citizens from say a civil war in Africa can be used for an intervention in that civil war but China is not going to do the latter.
Agreed, in that I am saying China's carriers are intended for deterrence even closer to home, to maintain a conventional MAD balance with mainland Japan and perhaps also needed for South Korea to prevent their intervention or escalation in any scenario that does not directly involve them, such as a Taiwan scenario.
Again as above, the same carrier forces or capability that is required for China to reliably hold eastern Japan at risk in any conflict may be very similar to one for an attack on northern Australia but China is not going to do the latter. However such capability is far from what it would take to hold for example the US west coast at risk in any conflict.
Fair enough but I don't think that will be the driver for long distance Chinese carrier deployment into the Pacific towards the US. The driver is Chinese inability or inconfidence in maintaining land based or home territory/periphery based nuclear MAD deterrence with the US, thereby necessitating it to further develop, deploy, and escort the naval and air legs of its nuclear triad to be in closer range and more confident delivery to the US mainland. THAAD deployment in South Korea as well as the ABM and ASW capabilities of US and allied naval forces no doubt pushed China in this direction. Though it involves expeditionary forces this is actually part of homeland defense.
Indeed I am saying no to both capability and strategy.
Though if you want to debate capability vs intent, I will say that blindly looking at capability is objective to a degree but also out of context to another. The same forces used for an amphibious landing in Taiwan can be used for an amphibious landing in the Philippines, but China is not going to do the latter. The same forces used for an escorted/secured evacuation of citizens from say a civil war in Africa can be used for an intervention in that civil war but China is not going to do the latter.
Agreed, in that I am saying China's carriers are intended for deterrence even closer to home, to maintain a conventional MAD balance with mainland Japan and perhaps also needed for South Korea to prevent their intervention or escalation in any scenario that does not directly involve them, such as a Taiwan scenario.
Again as above, the same carrier forces or capability that is required for China to reliably hold eastern Japan at risk in any conflict may be very similar to one for an attack on northern Australia but China is not going to do the latter. However such capability is far from what it would take to hold for example the US west coast at risk in any conflict.
Fair enough but I don't think that will be the driver for long distance Chinese carrier deployment into the Pacific towards the US. The driver is Chinese inability or inconfidence in maintaining land based or home territory/periphery based nuclear MAD deterrence with the US, thereby necessitating it to further develop, deploy, and escort the naval and air legs of its nuclear triad to be in closer range and more confident delivery to the US mainland. THAAD deployment in South Korea as well as the ABM and ASW capabilities of US and allied naval forces no doubt pushed China in this direction. Though it involves expeditionary forces this is actually part of homeland defense.