PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

Patchwork_Chimera said:

I consider this to be completely irrelevant. The Philippines, Malaysia, etc. can do as they please - but unless they can stop us, they have exactly zero impact on our actions. They're welcome to lodge as many diplomatic protests as they like, but in the event of a hot war with the PRC, diplomatic cordiality is completely out the window. Again, these are issues I personally have dealt with, and I'm telling you concretely that we do not care, and we do not intend to handicap ourselves at the behest of nations who have no ability to affect us.

Click to expand...

But they do have the ability to affect the US.

Let's say that the US military does launch attacks on the Chinese SCS bases using airspace above the Indonesian archipelago. Then the Chinese Navy will move in to counter. That will turn the internal waters and airspace of the Indonesian archipelago into an active war zone. The Indonesians will be frantic at such an outcome, and will want both American and Chinese military forces out.

The Chinese military will be happy to oblige if Indonesia/ASEAN declares its waters and airspace off-limits to any foreign military.

But if the US military completely ignores these protests from Indonesia or the other ASEAN nations, that will drive them into China's embrace. You can forget about any ASEAN compliance with sanctions against China for one thing, as they will actively embrace Chinese alternatives. The ASEAN militaries will tacitly support the Chinese military - who are focused on protecting all shipping passing through the SCS or Malacca Straits or Indonesian archipelago. China could also *gift* air defence radars to Indonesia for example and track US bombers passing through Indonesian airspace. The Chinese military could quietly receive this targeting data, whilst Indonesia still proclaims neutrality. So does the US want to get into a war with Indonesia/ASEAN as well?

ASEAN comprises 10 countries, has over 600 million people and a GDP in PPP terms of approximately $10 Trillion.
This is not insignificant.

So if US military planning is to use Indonesian archipelago to attack the Chinese bases in the SCS, I see the result as being completely counterproductive. The military advantages are distinctly lacklustre compared to huge disadvantages of pushing Indonesia/ASEAN into the Chinese camp.

Patchwork_Chimera said:

I also don't consider UN condemnation of the Russia situation to be especially relevant - but even if it were, you have to remember that of the nations that *did* condemn the invasion, it may not have been the majority of the population, but is absolutely the majority of economic productivity.

Click to expand...

It's not about UN condemnation. It's about what countries have actually imposed any sort of economic sanctions against Russia.

And on a back of the envelope calculation, Global World Product is approx $160 Trillion in PPP terms. Only countries comprising $63 Trillion (40% of Gross World Product) imposed any sanctions on Russia.

Patchwork_Chimera said:

I think writing off the Western world as an insignificant minority is fairly imprudent. The majority of NATO would absolutely back the United States at least diplomatically in the event of hostilities with the PRC. If the majority of Africa, South Asia (I would personally consider India to be at least conciliatory towards the US position, as they have their own diplomatic rift with the PRC), and South America say "Hey wait that's mean!" in response to US airspace violations, that's all well and good, but it won't stop us.

Click to expand...

The key point is Binken saying China is on the wrong side of history with regards to neutrality on Russia.
But we can see today that countries comprising a majority of Global World Product are neutral on Russia and haven't imposed sanctions.

Furthermore, these countries are generally at a lower development level and are much faster growing than the Western World. So in the future, we can expect their share of global economic activity to grow. This does suggest that China is on the right side of history on not imposing sanctions on Russia. Even India agrees on the point of being neutral on Russia.

Patchwork_Chimera said:

Again, our COA selection is not predicated on being "right" or "wrong" in the eyes of history, it's based upon our desire to end up as the one writing it. Endless moralizing can be done about the justification or lack thereof of intervention, but I am telling you that it simply does not factor in to our employment planning.

Click to expand...

And can you see the problem?

If US military employment planning completely disregards the concerns of other countries and ignores political considerations, then the rest of the world will be resentful. They want to find an alternative or balancing power, which means closer relations with China.

AndrewS said:

If US military employment planning completely disregards the concerns of other countries and ignores political considerations, then the rest of the world will be resentful. They want to find an alternative or balancing power, which means closer relations with China.

Click to expand...

What the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant once China is defeated. No other power in the world can challenge the Hegemon.

I'm not sure why it's so controversial that USAF would be willing to overfly Indonesia/Malaysia to strike these targets. That should be a given. It is also a given that China would do the same. I don't quite understand why people keep bringing up using tactic nukes, but think that it would outrageous for 2 superpowers to try to use any conventional advantage they might have. The likelihood of tactical nuke exchange is really low. I think the fear on Chinese side is that America would use tactical nukes or intentionally try to destroy a nuclear power plant or three Gorges Dam in a conflict, which would necessitate China to retaliate with nukes. That's why you see China doing their nuclear buildup. It's to avoid the nuclear blackmail scenario, because they simply don't trust that US military would hold off on using nukes in the event that they are losing a war. Anyway, moving off this topic.

On the economic question, I think a war would be terrible for the world economy. It would not only destroy Chinese and American economy but also every country around the world. The current Ukraine war would be a cakewalk compared to what might happen in a China/US war. There would be hyperinflation, currency collapses around the world.

As such, I would hope that such a conflict never happen. Best case scenario (from the perspective of mainland China) is if China gets so strong that American elites simply realize that Taiwan is not defendable and a KMT gov't negotiates for a de facto unification where Taiwan gets a lot of autonomy.

@Patchwork_Chimera I do have to disagree with you on one thing. I still think it's more likely for them to station a larger fleet between Taiwan and Guam. I think it serves 3 purposes:
1) cut off sea lane from Australia to Japan/Taiwan. As such, Japan/Taiwan would be completely cut off from oil and natural gas. As such, Japan is likely to throw all it has remaining to keep that sea lane open.
2) Allow 052D/055 to launch cruise missiles (I'm assuming they have up to 2000 km in range) at Guam. Although, this is not really a concern if they have significant number of H-20s.
3) Have another area where 094 can roam. I think having underwater nuclear retaliation would be high on PLAN's list.

Whereas if they were to venture too far south of Spratleys, they basically loose a lot of air cover, which would make the fleet to vulnerable to submarines and bombers. Given how far Diego Garcia is (5000+km), I'm actually not sure they can do that much damage. This is another case where a PLAAF with H20s would have significant ability in degrading DG and Australian bases. I don't think China would be concerned if oil/natural gas gets cut off (they probably anticipate it), because their domestic supply + pipeline + Russian supply is enough to sustain their economy and industrial base. There is also x factor of being able to operate out of Myanmar or Cambodia in a major war. I think there is just a lot more land bases protection around SCS that's not present once you get to 1000 km East of mainland.

@Patchwork_Chimera sorry to bother you again, but I thought about the capabilities of H20s and it would bring significant game changing capabilities imo.

Since war gaming often looks at capabilities near end of this decade (when H20 might enter service in small numbers), has it entered into war gaming that America might face attacks around Aleutian islands and maybe as far as the air bases in Alaska? If H20s are available, I would imagine they'd definitely want to take out the ability of American strategic bombers being able to hit them from Anchorage.

The other possibility that might open up in the next 10 years is the ability to take Guam if they manage to significantly degrade US military infrastructure there in the opening phase of the war. Or at least, I think it's something they would try even if they don't have a modern nuclear attack sub. Would probably involve significant air lift plus H20s and UCAVs. The reason for PLA to try taking Guam is to make it harder for USN to sustain forward operation.

vincent said:

When China only had 300 nukes, US can safely nuke China without worry much about retaliatory strikes. Think about it, over 90% of Chinese launch vehicles will get wipe out in a first strike, the remaining few may suffer launch failures, mishaps, targeting errors, etc. The ones that make it to the air will be track by the THAAD system in South Korea, cuing the GMD to intercept them (greatly increase the interception chance). It is quite likely none of Chinese ICBMs will reach CONUS.

Click to expand...

Once China had DF-31A TELs that was no longer an option without taking unacceptable damage. They couldn't even find Saddam's SCUDs in the desert with air supremacy and 3 sides surrounded by NATO with 100% AWAC coverage over every inch of Iraq. What are they going to do about TELs in China, a heavily forested, urbanized and mountainous country plus hardened underground bunkers? Launching west across central Siberia and eastern Canada still gets the missiles within range too. Doesn't need to be an over Alaska or over Pacific launch.

Once China had DF-41 TELs that was suicidal. It's not just unacceptable damage at this point, but with MIRVed DF-41s they would be crippled.

Today? China has 300 silos, , N DF-41s, and a This means that there's no blind spots with the combined Chinese-Russian early warning network and any attack on China not only risks MAD from China's substantial arsenal, it also risks drawing in Russia's full arsenal flattening the remaining cities and allies that could help rebuild.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Once China had DF-31A TELs that was no longer an option without taking unacceptable damage. They couldn't even find Saddam's SCUDs in the desert with air supremacy and 3 sides surrounded by NATO with 100% AWAC coverage over every inch of Iraq. What are they going to do about TELs in China, a heavily forested, urbanized and mountainous country plus hardened underground bunkers? Launching west across central Siberia and eastern Canada still gets the missiles within range too. Doesn't need to be an over Alaska or over Pacific launch.

Once China had DF-41 TELs that was suicidal. It's not just unacceptable damage at this point, but with MIRVed DF-41s they would be crippled.

Click to expand...

Mobile missiles aren’t on the road all the time. They stay in bases most of the time. In a surprise first strike by the US, bases with ICBMs will be targeted.

Any missiles survived the first strike have to get past the GMD defence in Alaska. The THAAD radar in South Korea can provide early warning and tracking data to increase the interception rate.

vincent said:

Mobile missiles aren’t on the road all the time. They stay in bases most of the time. In a surprise first strike by the US, bases with ICBMs will be targeted.

Any missiles survived the first strike have to get past the GMD defence in Alaska. The THAAD radar in South Korea can provide early warning and tracking data to increase the interception rate.

Click to expand...

"Launching west across central Siberia and eastern Canada still gets the missiles within range too. Doesn't need to be an over Alaska or over Pacific launch."

Launch on warning is a thing, as Yang Chengjun noted.

China is slightly smaller than the United States and the DF-41 can be launched from Xinjiang to New York. Which means the US will need to launch a lot of missiles across the entirety of China to ensure everything gets hits because some will get intercepted.

Firing that many missiles will be noticeable by everyone including China and Russia. The Russians aren’t going to sit around and check to see where those missiles will go and neither will the Chinese. It will be an all out nuclear war. I don’t know why you think the US can launch ICBMs without it being detected by anyone and that they won’t react to it.

FriedButter said:

China is slightly smaller than the United States and the DF-41 can be launched from Xinjiang to New York. Which means the US will need to launch a lot of missiles across the entirety of China to ensure everything gets hits because some will get intercepted.

Firing that many missiles will be noticeable by everyone including China and Russia. The Russians aren’t going to sit around and check to see where those missiles will go and neither will the Chinese. It will be an all out nuclear war. I don’t know why you think the US can launch ICBMs without it being detected by anyone and that they won’t react to it.

Click to expand...

I think the Russians won't launch because they can project trajectory and see the RVs won't land in Russia. So US ICBMs overlying Russia should be fine

FriedButter said:

China is slightly smaller than the United States and the DF-41 can be launched from Xinjiang to New York. Which means the US will need to launch a lot of missiles across the entirety of China to ensure everything gets hits because some will get intercepted.

Firing that many missiles will be noticeable by everyone including China and Russia. The Russians aren’t going to sit around and check to see where those missiles will go and neither will the Chinese. It will be an all out nuclear war. I don’t know why you think the US can launch ICBMs without it being detected by anyone and that they won’t react to it.

Click to expand...

Launches from Ohio subs will not be mistaken to be targeting Russia, plus I said if China only has 300 warheads on small number of ICBMs which doesn’t require a massive number of missiles to destroy.