PLA (strategic) news, pics, and videos

tonyget

Senior Member
Registered Member
China can go through Myanmar.
And note that China has actually built airfields in Myanmar.

China doesn't have military base in Myanmar

Also, I highly doubt that countries in the Middle East or Africa will allow US bases to be used to attack Chinese ships or territory. Remember that even today, DF-26 class missiles can cover all of the Persian Gulf waters and adjacent oilfields and oil refineries.

And those countries know that:
1. The Chinese economy is approaching 2x the size of the US economy in real terms
2. In terms of manufacturing output, China is more than 2x larger
3. The US Navy says China has 232x the shipbuilding capacity of the US
4. China is their largest trading partner, and this will likely remain true after any conflict ends

I don't think any of those countries can denial the US military from operating in their bases

So please think about what realistically would happen, instead of clinging onto unrealistic scenarios where the US wins.

Unrealistic ? Not even the Chinese leadership think that's an "unrealistic scenario". The threat of trade route cut off by the US has always been the most serious concern in China,for all these years China’s attempt to build self-sufficiency in energy and food,is precisely out of fears that the supply could be blocked by the US. And don't take my word for it,just search Chinese and English language resources online,see if sea line blockade is the biggest threat China faces in a potential conflict with the US
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
China doesn't have military base in Myanmar
There is no need to have one. J-36 and tanker can take off from Yunan.

Unrealistic ? Not even the Chinese leadership think that's an "unrealistic scenario". The threat of trade route cut off by the US has always been the most serious concern in China,for all these years China’s attempt to build self-sufficiency in energy and food,is precisely out of fears that the supply could be blocked by the US. And don't take my word for it,just search Chinese and English language resources online,see if sea line blockade is the biggest threat China faces in a potential conflict with the US
If US forces refused to engage, PLA can bring the battle to them by attacking West Pac bases, then move on to Alaska, and finally CONUS.

Stopping China’s trade pretty much equal to stopping global trade. We’ll see how long each side can hold out. My bet is on China.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Unrealistic ? Not even the Chinese leadership think that's an "unrealistic scenario". The threat of trade route cut off by the US has always been the most serious concern in China,for all these years China’s attempt to build self-sufficiency in energy and food,is precisely out of fears that the supply could be blocked by the US. And don't take my word for it,just search Chinese and English language resources online,see if sea line blockade is the biggest threat China faces in a potential conflict with the US
I think the "Malacca Dilemma" isn't so much of a dilemma these days; this was more of a concern back during the tenure of Hu Jintao. The Indonesian island chains have multiple points of ingress to the SCS starting with Sunda Strait and going eastward. The US would have to block all of these access points to effectively deny Chinese shipping from reaching the SCS, with each strait blocked meaning less ships concentrated at any one point. The problem for the USN is that the PLAN nowadays has plenty of ships, planes, and subs to hit any of these points with large concentrations of force. The USN could still blockade ME oil effectively but China has been building up large petroleum reserves for exactly this eventuality.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
China doesn't have military base in Myanmar
Surface to surface missiles don't need bases in between.
I don't think any of those countries can denial the US military from operating in their bases
None of those countries can stop China from striking the US bases there either.
Unrealistic ? Not even the Chinese leadership think that's an "unrealistic scenario". The threat of trade route cut off by the US has always been the most serious concern in China,for all these years China’s attempt to build self-sufficiency in energy and food,is precisely out of fears that the supply could be blocked by the US. And don't take my word for it,just search Chinese and English language resources online,see if sea line blockade is the biggest threat China faces in a potential conflict with the US
In addition to what everyone else already said, this whole thing is basically the US already admitting defeat and ceding Asia to China. It's just relegating itself to little shithead global terrorist pirate cus it can't fight China properly. And once we're there, it's just a matter of time before America is completely defeated.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
China doesn't have military base in Myanmar

Officially, China doesn't have military bases in Myanmar.
But China has built at least 1 military grade airfield in Myanmar.


I don't think any of those countries can denial the US military from operating in their bases

Yes they can. For example, Turkey regularly denies operations from Incirlik Airbase.

Unrealistic ? Not even the Chinese leadership think that's an "unrealistic scenario". The threat of trade route cut off by the US has always been the most serious concern in China,for all these years China’s attempt to build self-sufficiency in energy and food,is precisely out of fears that the supply could be blocked by the US. And don't take my word for it,just search Chinese and English language resources online,see if sea line blockade is the biggest threat China faces in a potential conflict with the US

As I mentioned previously, back of the envelope calculations indicate that in the event of a China-US war with seaborne imports of oil blocked, China does have enough domestic production and overland imports to get by.

As for food, China maintains a 90% self-sufficiency ratio for grain production.
Plus there is a strategic grain reserve which is sufficient for 2-3 years of consumption.

We also see strategic stockpiles in other areas, plus the option of importing a lot more stuff through Russia or other 3rd party neutral countries.

So a distant seaborne blockade isn't the biggest threat to China. It is direct US attacks on mainland China.

---

The only way to address this threat is for China to build a military that can:

1. First deny US using bases in the 1st Island Chain and then 2nd Island Chain, and impose an effective air-sea blockade on any countries stupid enough to voluntarily join the US in a war against China

2. Then in the following years, build a larger Navy and Air Force to push beyond the 2nd Island Chain
 

Neurosmith

Junior Member
Registered Member
China is a major crude oil producer too and is in the process of electrifying her entire transportation fleet. I think 70% of crude oils are used for transportation? In time of war, the government can tell the refineries to stop producing gasoline and diesel and use the crude oil for chemicals and plastics. China will switch to a war economy so she is not gonna produce consumer goods for the rest of the world. The amount of crude oil needed to run a war economy will be much less than normal.
China's consumption of oil was 756 million tons in 2024 and its production 213 million tons. It is nigh impossible to expect the 543 million ton discrepancy to be replaced by increased oil imports from Russia or from friendly countries that have overland pipelines to China.

A "war economy" is not a medium- or long-term solution and if a hypothetical oil embargo/blockade is imposed on a long-term basis, this would be nothing short of disastrous for China's security. Additionally, I don't expect China to adopt a total war economy for a smaller conflict such as one involving Taiwan or the SCS region.

The effects of economic/shipping blockades work both ways. Ask the Europeans how they feel about the sanctions on Russian energy exports. Without Chinese products or intermediate goods (nor Japanese goods and Korean goods), the West will get no consumer goods nor industrial source materials. Their economies will grind to a halt with far greater consequences than the Chinese economy. People in the West will be fighting for scraps while people in China can live normal lives. Remember the shortages experienced in the West during Covid? That was with China going all out supplying everything to the West. Now imagine what happen when the flow of goods from East Asia stopped.
The US and Europe have a tendency to switch to other sources when an embargo or sanction is imposed; their energy demands could be met by US oil exports while other consumer goods are being increasingly Vietnamese- or Indian-made. As China transitions to a services-based economy, the effect of sanctions and blockades become more pronounced on its economy.

That’s why i said China should bomb all infrastructure on the First Island Chain (Japan, South Korea and the Philippines) so US Air Force can’t based any tankers there and US Navy have no bases for resupplies. Without tanker support from the First Island Chain, US bombers can fly far fewer sorties and carry far less munitions per sortie.
The US does not technically need Pacific bases to mount attacks on China's mainland; its B-2 & B-21 bombers could fly directly from CONUS and its submarines are mostly capable of launching land-attack cruise missiles. To a lesser extent, carrier-based aircraft could also launch the JASSM-ER from standoff ranges while staying out of range of most Chinese area denial weaponry.

People forget that China tested a hypersonic missile that circumnavigated the globe twice before hiting its target, I am of the opinion that they will have no problem hiting the CONUS, and also the typhoon groups hacking of US vital infrastructure will result in the whole country coming to a grinding stop
Folks need to stop entertaining the idea that China would risk a nuclear exchange by attacking CONUS via space-based weaponry and ballistic missiles.

Previous back of the envelope calculations indicate that China could get by without seaborne imports of oil. There's enough domestic production and overland imports.

I don't think this is a coincidence, but a policy decision.
See my above response to vincent.

Think about how Taiwan, Japan and the Philippines are all small, densely populated "islands" with literally no natural resources. They are critically reliant on imports for oil and food.

They are also close to China and far away from external support. China can likely produce enough missiles and therefore impose an air-sea blockade on any opposing islands in the Western Pacific. Those islands will face collapse whilst China can get by from domestic resources and limited imports over land/sea.

For example, if Japan faces the prospect of 1. starving/collapse or 2. being neutral in a US-China conflict, what will Japan choose?
Yes, but the discussion is about the effect of international sanctions or a US-led naval blockade against China. The smaller countries may indeed be more import-dependent than China, but (1) they wouldn't be sanctioned or blockaded in the event of a Pacific conflict and (2) China would care far more about its own economy and security situation than what is being done to the smaller countries, especially if these effects impact its chance of success in the said conflict.
 

Neurosmith

Junior Member
Registered Member
2. In terms of manufacturing output, China is more than 2x larger
3. The US Navy says China has 232x the shipbuilding capacity of the US
4. China is their largest trading partner, and this will likely remain true after any conflict ends

So please think about what realistically would happen, instead of clinging onto unrealistic scenarios where the US wins.
A key difference in the balance of power between the US and China is that the US would be able to degrade China's industrial capacity (including manufacturing and shipbuilding) because it is capable of attacking China's mainland, whereas China's ability to influence US industrial and production capabilities - which will undoubtedly increase in wartime - would be minimal or nil.
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
China's consumption of oil was 756 million tons in 2024 and its production 213 million tons. It is nigh impossible to expect the 543 million ton discrepancy to be replaced by increased oil imports from Russia or from friendly countries that have overland pipelines to China.

A "war economy" is not a medium- or long-term solution and if a hypothetical oil embargo/blockade is imposed on a long-term basis, this would be nothing short of disastrous for China's security. Additionally, I don't expect China to adopt a total war economy for a smaller conflict such as one involving Taiwan or the SCS region.
The resumption of the civil war is just an opening phase of the Sino-American war.
I think 70% of crude oil is used for transportation. Electrification of the transport fleet will remove the need of that.
The US and Europe have a tendency to switch to other sources when an embargo or sanction is imposed; their energy demands could be met by US oil exports while other consumer goods are being increasingly Vietnamese- or Indian-made. As China transitions to a services-based economy, the effect of sanctions and blockades become more pronounced on its economy.
Much of other countries productions require Chinese components. Vietnam, India and others are mostly assembling Chinese components together. Even the US imports lots of car components and industrial goods. If Chinese inputs are blocked, good luck finding replacements.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The chart shows that from 2020 to 2023, China’s exports to the global South increased from about US$60 billion per month to US$120 billion per month, an astonishing increase. But at the same time, US imports from the global South also increased from about US$40 billion per month in 2020 to about US$80 billion per month in 2023. A considerable part of China’s exports to the global South depends on the global South’s exports to the United States.

US depends on Chinese capital goods. True for the rest of the world too.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US does not technically need Pacific bases to mount attacks on China's mainland; its B-2 & B-21 bombers could fly directly from CONUS and its submarines are mostly capable of launching land-attack cruise missiles. To a lesser extent, carrier-based aircraft could also launch the JASSM-ER from standoff ranges while staying out of range of most Chinese area denial weaponry.
Yes they can, but the salvos will be much much smaller than basing the bombers and/or tankers on First Island Chain, and can be intercepted much easier. Remember PLA has 50+ AWACs, plenty of advance fighter jets and plenty of warships equip with good SAMs.
Folks need to stop entertaining the idea that China would risk a nuclear exchange by attacking CONUS via space-based weaponry and ballistic missiles.
Why China attacks CONUS will cause nuclear exchange but not when the US attacks China?
Yes, but the discussion is about the effect of international sanctions or a US-led naval blockade against China. The smaller countries may indeed be more import-dependent than China, but (1) they wouldn't be sanctioned or blockaded in the event of a Pacific conflict and (2) China would care far more about its own economy and security situation than what is being done to the smaller countries, especially if these effects impact its chance of success in the said conflict.
Western sanctions, not international. Western countries made up of only a tiny minority of the world. In time of war, security trumps economy. The Western blockade of China will mean no trade with East Asia. The West will not get any electronics anywhere.
 
Last edited:

SanWenYu

Captain
Registered Member
China's consumption of oil was 756 million tons in 2024 and its production 213 million tons. It is nigh impossible to expect the 543 million ton discrepancy to be replaced by increased oil imports from Russia or from friendly countries that have overland pipelines to China.
Not all the imported oil was "consumed" in China. Like all raw materials imported by China, quite a lot of the imported crude oil was exported again in different forms with value added.

First of all, China exports petroleum gas, diesel and even crude. Not a lot. Probably tens of millions tonnes combined. In wartime, all these exports will be stopped.

Every year, much of the imported crude by China was cracked to produce feedstocks like ethylene, propylene, etc. Plastics, films, fibres, etc. made from the feedstocks then ended up in final products exported globally. This kind of consumption will be dramatically reduced to only meet the domestic demands after the war breaks out. Domestic demands can be further rationed when needed.

What's left is mostly the fuel for ICE engines. The total number of ICE engines in China will soon peak if not already has. During a great war, the first thing the Chinese government will do is probably to ration fuel supply to private ICE vehicles. China has been working on mass production of synthetic gasoline and ethanol from coals, biomass and CO2+water. And there is also green hydrogen production and hydrogen powered vehicles as an option.

All these can cut the total crude oil consumption by a lot.
 
Top