Hypothetical Chinese military intervetion in Syria

nemo said:

How about the civilians? Civilians have a legitimate need to move, not in the least is food and water. They are not going to starve or die of thirst just so you can have your cheap, clean, technical solution.

Click to expand...

no_name said:

You'll have to keep them supplied. Think about the cost of deploying 8000 tanks to a country, now we're talking about 8000 bases.

I think, just set up long range MLRS (100 Km and above). stations around the country, defended by mobile armoured units. Each station can cover a wide area and each other, and can be redeployed if necessary. Layer each station with gun battery for closer and less expensive option, and AFV just in case. Have UAV surveillance for detecting approaching enemies and smart GPS guided munitions for the MLRS. Get more powerful mobile units to herd them into designated kill zones.

Click to expand...

Those are good questions,

Civilians will be subjected to a curfew / martial-law. They will only be allowed to transit along major roads until the economy picks up and the reasons to extremism dies down. The fortresses are now setup to be reactionary to rockets being discharged, guns being fired etc. it might be exploited but, the intent of the fortresses is the ability to lock down and prevent movement when things happen.

The 8000 bases are hypothetically automated to 120-240 days, each around the size of 2 or 3 units of 40 foot container. The sensor suite is a passive one, and draws low power from a UPS array or solar cells. a pair of generator (duty/standby) kicks in when the UPS is low power or threat are detected and there would be maybe ~4000 usgal of fuel store.

Armament would be, 2X 140-160mm mortar and 4X 17mm heavy machine guns; around 300 rounds of mortar shells and 20,000 rounds of HMG and a minefield around itself - like claymores.

The intent of the fortress is to react to insurgents, and it doesn't need to be able to hold it's own against siege as it would be under covering fire from the neighboring fortresses and the UAV patrolling above. Thus munition expenditure would be fairly low.

A fuel truck / munition carrier will resupply once the ammunition runs low or if fuel is low and or maintenance is required. In which time, the fuel truck would be hard to ambush as no matter where it drives, it will be under the covering fire of the fortresses and the UAV.

Fuel will be from the local refinery, munition could be shipped from China or produced locally.

This is a proof of concept, not a finalized solution obviously. the fortress could be expanded to be MLRS then you need less of them, but they cost more, A mortar shell maybe 100 USD to produce, an MLRS would be 100X that. So it is a fine balance

plawolf said:

There have been some excellent discussion points made by many, I have been quite busy lately and just didn't have a chance to make the sort of replies such posts deserves. Hopefully I will find some time to do so soon.



As per China's principles (its non-interference principle specifically), national sovereignty is absolute so long as no international laws or treaties are broken in the exercising of that sovereignty.

Short of being directly attacked or threatened with imminent attack, China would only consider doing something against the wishes of a nation's government on their soil if that action is explicitly authorised by an UN mandate (in the case of attack or imminent attack, UN rules are pretty cut and dried so China would be following the rules even in those extreme examples).

Conversely, so long as no international laws or treaties are broken, and there isn't an UN mandate specifically prohibiting something, China would see long problems in granting requests by sovereign governments inviting China to come and do something on their soil. That is not interference in China's book.

However, I can see China potentially drawing a line as far as fighting genuine domestic Syrian rebels, but since there are only like 4 of them left fighting in Syria these days, I don't think that is going to be a massive issue practically.

As far as ISIS is concerned, fighting them would be the same as helping a country fight off foreign invasion.

If China really wanted more diplomatic and legal cover, it could easily grant Syria's SCO membership request, and then deploy its troops under the SCO flag under the organisation's counter terrorism clauses.

Remember when western "experts" openly mocked and made fun of that clause and SCO exercises involving tanks, jets and thousands of troops asking when you would need such assets and numbers to combat terrorists?

The conflict in Syria is almost a textbook example of the kind of strife and internal unrest the SCO's military mandate was written to defend against.

You really have to admire the planners and writers who got that pretty much spot on. Its almost like they saw this coming.

Click to expand...

They have been seeing that kind of unrest and terrorism in many ex-Soviet republics including Chechnya. I would be surprised if they didn't design the SCO around large scale conventional warfare internal pacification.

nemo said:

How about the civilians? Civilians have a legitimate need to move, not in the least is food and water. They are not going to starve or die of thirst just so you can have your cheap, clean, technical solution.

Click to expand...

dude, Lezt didn't talk Genocide maybe you should check his preceding post

Lezt said:

...

Syria is around 200,000 km2, that will give ~8000 fortresses; with a resupply force of 20,000 men, mainly for fuel, and some munition, the entire country could be made to meet curfew requirements. Any unauthorized movements or discharge of weapons will receive a reply of mortar shells within seconds.

Click to expand...

Lezt said:

This is where I would disagree with you, desert warfare had always been about waterholes and mobility around them. i.e. fortresses around waterholes. The last 100 years saw something different and that is mobile armor cores in desert environment; but that most certainly does not invalidate thousands of years of experience. The Gobi was fortified and so was the Sahara and many parts of the middle east.

ISIS is not a mobile force, it is not an armor core, there are no strongholds to take and there is no army to smash. they are a guerrilla force and their greatest asset and Achilles heels is the freedom of movement.

Sending conventional forces against them is not cost effective; nor is sending F16s to bomb them.

Click to expand...

Other people have refuted the automated fortress idea so I'll talk about the other aspects.

Even a guerrilla army must have a logistical backbone and key areas where they have war production. they rely upon the local population for most of their manpower and food/water. These sources must be denied one way or another, appealing to peoples' self interest goes a long way, but not direct money. That strategy has been tried before in Afghanistan and did not work there for very long. Putting a 'friendly face' on the intervention and backing it up with constructive efforts to improve ordinary peoples' lives is a proven method to reduce instability. Not to sound presumptuous, but with no high altitude AA a besieged Russian/Chinese/American force can rely upon air resupply even for water today. The dangers of the desert have never changed of course, but....access to resources has been made immensely easier, in comparison to the Desert warfare campaigns of the past. Obviously if the enemy had good AA systems this wouldn't work.......but good working SAMs aren't something you find just lying around.

In addition, oil production and sales of artifacts are contributing greatly towards their finances. Obviously, completely sealing off the land borders is not an option due to the large land borders with so much desert to traverse. However, if were to take a page from the US playbook.....Hunter-Killer drones could be used in tandem with patrols across the border zones, but we run the risk of a)killing civilians, b) attacking another country's military affilaited personnel and c) hacked drones. Continued occupation of key industrial facilities may help diminish the resources going to Daesh.

There is going to be no fast and easy solution. We can all hope/pray for Daesh to surrender tomorrow but that ain't happening. Unless their commanders are truly foolish, there is going to be virtually zero possibility of luring a large proportion of their combat units into a Dien Bien Phu/Khe Sanh scenario. They are very much aware of how lethal airpower directed against exposed units is. Not unless there is a target of such high value that they cannot afford to lose it, but I haven't heard of such a target yet.

I know that people here don't like wikipedia, and fairly so, but there are a lot of logical points by Thompson.

The US DOD has listed several strongholds, here is a link to the graphic: More recently Raqqa and Tikrit (Saddam Hussein's hometown) has been designated as strongholds.

As something to add (edit has expired). Something will have to be done about external suppliers of Daesh or this whole operation will be a waste of time and lives/resources. Not allowed to point fingers here, but stern conversations and warnings to certain countries, behind closed doors will have to be done. No beating about the bush for sensibilities of very unreliable countries if they refuse to cooperate on such a vital matter out of petty reasons.

Skye_ZTZ_113 said:

As something to add (edit has expired). Something will have to be done about external suppliers of Daesh or this whole operation will be a waste of time and lives/resources. Not allowed to point fingers here, but stern conversations and warnings to certain countries, behind closed doors will have to be done. No beating about the bush for sensibilities of very unreliable countries if they refuse to cooperate on such a vital matter out of petty reasons.

Click to expand...

That is a good point, but I seriously doubt a stern talking to will get the sponsors of ISIS to stop.

The best solution would be to start the ground campaign right at the boarders between Syria and those suspected to supplying ISIS. This is probably where foreign troops will have to be involved, as I just cannot see the Syria Army being able to achieve this.

So, foreign troops will launch a lightening attack, potentially via amphibious assault, that secures the boards and cuts ISIS off from their primary sources of supply and support.

At the same time, the Syrian army could then engage ISIS head on in the rest of the country supported by friendly air strikes and foreign special forces.

The idea is to tie down as much of ISIS' fighting strength as possible on the one hand, while cutting their supply lines at the rear.

The two fronts would then push ISIS from both sides and destroy them somewhere in the middle to make sure none are able to simply melt away across porous boarders.

plawolf said:

That is a good point, but I seriously doubt a stern talking to will get the sponsors of ISIS to stop.

The best solution would be to start the ground campaign right at the boarders between Syria and those suspected to supplying ISIS. This is probably where foreign troops will have to be involved, as I just cannot see the Syria Army being able to achieve this.

So, foreign troops will launch a lightening attack, potentially via amphibious assault, that secures the boards and cuts ISIS off from their primary sources of supply and support.

At the same time, the Syrian army could then engage ISIS head on in the rest of the country supported by friendly air strikes and foreign special forces.

The idea is to tie down as much of ISIS' fighting strength as possible on the one hand, while cutting their supply lines at the rear.

The two fronts would then push ISIS from both sides and destroy them somewhere in the middle to make sure none are able to simply melt away across porous boarders.

Click to expand...

I was envisioning direct economic threats relating to investments and trade, and mentioning of certain evidence linking them to the supplying of Daesh activities. Being a covert supporter is one thing, but being exposed for it would force their friends and allies to keep a distance lest they get marred too.

I agree with your strike forces idea, but would like to add that the assault force must be extremely wary of having dispersed units mobbed by insurgents and then made ''an example of.'' This will not be good for morale and will increase the possibility of retaliatory attacks by the taskforces.

An offer to allow low level and junior officers to surrender should be made at some point imo, whereupon it can be judged on whether they are one of the 'high level' members, in a manner akin to the demobilisation of the Wehrmacht WWII. It will be no good to simply try to kill off all their members, despite what many might call for. Fairness should be called for, emotion should not be involved here.

Given the same situation ... ...

I wonder how many regular Chinese citizens or Chinese Officials will ( get shaky knees / urinate in the pant / become very timid ) facing you-know-who, thus avoid joining Russia to support Assad and create a solid information-age-economic-front of Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Especially those corrupt Chinese officials ( those corrupt & exclusive 500 families ) who have tons of financial asset hiding in US or family members in US, sacrificing national benefits for personal gains.
Those are the one who urinate in the pant so easily.

Click to expand...

plawolf said:

Its a good thing such people would never have the ultimate say in China.

Click to expand...

As the day goes by, and judging from the comments from the master--urinator--wet--pants--Beijing--University--graduates ( too many, but not all ) who work in Foreign Ministry of PRC, ... ...
China is sitting on the sideline again, and not explicitly supporting Russia.
Because China is afraid to offend you--know--who.

In contrast, ... ... China is never afraid to express--it--on--you--face towards Shinzo.
Knowing very well Shinzo's behind the back master is you--know--who.
Why such contrasting behaviors ?

Why?
My theory is because of reason on the top ... ...

... ... corrupt Chinese officials ( those corrupt & exclusive 500 families ) who have tons of financial asset hiding in US or family members studying in US, sacrificing national benefits for personal gains.

Even though OTOH, you--know--who ... ...
hosting and sheltering Rebiya Kadeer for the last 26 years and counting ( since 1989 -- after failure to split China ), and using old map of Belgrade to drop 5 JDAM guided bombs on the Chinese embassy.

Some Chinese leaders just took it with glee.
( I am just stating the facts. -- Hopefully, it will not be censored )

Skye_ZTZ_113 said:

I was envisioning direct economic threats relating to investments and trade, and mentioning of certain evidence linking them to the supplying of Daesh activities. Being a covert supporter is one thing, but being exposed for it would force their friends and allies to keep a distance lest they get marred too.

I agree with your strike forces idea, but would like to add that the assault force must be extremely wary of having dispersed units mobbed by insurgents and then made ''an example of.'' This will not be good for morale and will increase the possibility of retaliatory attacks by the taskforces.

An offer to allow low level and junior officers to surrender should be made at some point imo, whereupon it can be judged on whether they are one of the 'high level' members, in a manner akin to the demobilisation of the Wehrmacht WWII. It will be no good to simply try to kill off all their members, despite what many might call for. Fairness should be called for, emotion should not be involved here.

Click to expand...

Well, I think is an open secret who supports ISIS. The veneer is so thin, I don't think it would make much difference to puncture it completely.

Also, given who these backers actually are, I think China would be wary of pushing them so far as to out them directly.

If this strike force is Chinese, then it will be pretty much the entire strength of the PLA expeditionary force. We are probably looking at a force tens of thousands strong at a minimum, potentially a hundred thousand or more if they want to make sure they do this right. So I think there will be little risk of any part of the force being isolated and overrun.

Given that this would be China's first major engagement in decades, I think they will prefer to apply the steamroller strategy of slow but steady, methodical progress after the initial rush to secure the length of the board.

As for fairness, well I fear you may be misunderstanding the nature of the enemy.

I seriously doubt there is a single ISIS fighter alive without innocent blood on his/her hands.

These are not a regular army, and they pride themselves on using atrocities to train, blood, bond and ultimately bind their foot soldiers to their horrific cause and ideology.

All those public murders and executions are as much about testing and indoctrinating their troops as it is about killing or sending messages to the survivors/outside world.

When you deliberately brutalise and kill an innocent civilian, you stop being a soldier. That experience changes a person, which is why they make their soldiers do it.

Anyone who refuses would likely find themselves in front of the firing squad rather than in it in pretty quick order or find himself with a suicide vest on the next time ISIS needs something blown up.

You also need to consider the practical considerations. You will need to house these guys somewhere, and it could be years or decades before you can try them all. If you think the US had it rough with camp x-ray, just how bad do you think China would get it for opening a far larger camp?

Witnesses and evidence is going to be a massive problem, as ISIS has the nasty habit of killing everyone and leaving no survivors to finger the killers. The refugee crisis means any survivors and witnesses are going to be scattered into the wind all over the world, so tracking them down is going to be hell.

Basically, no matter what China does with ISIS prisoners, it is going to get the blame for it and get accused of everything anyone could think off anyways.

As such, the best solution is to not even try to give them a trial.

Simply establish the nationality of ISIS prisoners and send them back to their home countries for them to sort it all out.

Log the biometric data for all such prisoners and make it abundantly clear that if any of them are caught so much as taking a flight transfer through Syria or China they will be line up against a wall and shot.

The legal issues as posted by Jura here https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/isis-isil-conflict-in-iraq-syria-news-thread.t6913/page-157#post-366796 could be some of the reasons to deter China. Those are issues that need to be sorted out.