PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

FriedRiceNSpice said:

No. Ore just needs to undergo additional refinement to remove impurities. Its basic science.

Click to expand...

If it is that simple，the West could also dump Chinese mineral supply overnight. Oil refinery plant cannot just switch from Saudi crude to Russian crude because their chemical composition is different，oil refinery plant were setup to be only process certain type of crude. Iron ore refinery is the same thing，the existing refinery can only process Australian ore not Chinese ore.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

The point is importing minerals does not imply China does not have sufficient domestic mineral reserves.

Click to expand...

Check Chinese official statement. Are you implying that the Chinese official is lying when they say China lacks certain mineral ？

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Wrong.

Click to expand...

Prove me wrong

FriedRiceNSpice said:

China is connected by land to Eurasia. The largest landmass on earth. It can trade with Russia and Central Asia as well as most of Southeast Asia without needing to secure sea routes.

Click to expand...

Even people in late Qing dynasty realized the importance of thalassocracy，I thought it's a common knowledge of every modern day Chinese people. Chinese government has been educating citizens the critical role of maritime power，via shool textbook and other channel ever since the beginning of the PRC.

According to Chinese textbook：China had ignored importance of maritime for the past thousands of years，and eventually paid heavy price of this，the price is "The humilation of the century" .

You may disagree with this official position，but I doubt most of Chinese do

FriedRiceNSpice said:

The US, on the other hand, is heavily dependent on China for production of most refined metals. The US can neither mine nor refine enough minerals for its its own consumption. Not just rare earths. So in a conflict, China does not even need to choke off all US trade. It just needs to stop exporting.

Click to expand...

Whatever，if you think China can simply win the war by banning export the the US，then there is no point for you to keep discussing in this thread

tonyget said:

If it is that simple，the West could also dump Chinese mineral supply overnight. Oil refinery plant cannot just switch from Saudi crude to Russian crude because their chemical composition is different，oil refinery plant were setup to be only process certain type of crude. Iron ore refinery is the same thing，the existing refinery can only process Australian ore not Chinese ore.

Click to expand...

This is basic technology that has been around for decades. Back when the US was a major steel producer, the US would need to refine/upgrade domestic iron ore in order to make higher grades of steel because the iron ore mined in the US was also of lower grade. In WW2, Germany was able to use lower quality domestic iron ore after it was cut off from higher grade Norwegian ores.

Iron is one of the most abundant minerals on Earth. Iron mining is constrained by economics and price, not availability. Due to abundant supply, the price of iron ore is extremely low. For iron ore extraction to be profitable, the ore needs to be easy to extract and the location of the mine needs to located in close proximity to a logistics hubs.

tonyget said:

Check Chinese official statement. Are you implying that the Chinese official is lying when they say China lacks certain mineral ？

Click to expand...

What statement, what minerals? It definitely cannot be iron ore.

tonyget said:

Prove me wrong

Click to expand...

Its not my responsibility to enlighten you of your ignorance, but here is one example: nosecones and wave gliders for hypersonic weapons.

tonyget said:

Even people in late Qing dynasty realized the importance of thalassocracy，I thought it's a common knowledge of every modern day Chinese people. Chinese government has been educating citizens the critical role of maritime power，via shool textbook and other channel ever since the beginning of the PRC.

According to Chinese textbook：China had ignored importance of maritime for the past thousands of years，and eventually paid heavy price of this，the price is "The humilation of the century" .

You may disagree with this official position，but I doubt most of Chinese do

Click to expand...

What are you arguing here? Did I say China should neglect the navy? What China has done is hedging: both develop sufficient naval power to protect its maritime trade routes as will as establish overland trade routes through BRI and cooperation with Russia and the Central Asian states. Maritime power is important but often exaggerated in importance - you should google what is known as the, "heartland theory." And historically, maritime powers have not performed well when facing strong continental powers.

tonyget said:

Whatever，if you think China can simply win the war by banning export the the US，then there is no point for you to keep discussing in this thread

Click to expand...

Did I say the war will be won by banning exports? My point, which should be obvious, would be that US industry would be under tougher material constraints than Chinese industry in the off chance that China and US enter into direct conflict. China simply enjoys a manifold advantage in terms of both manufacturing capability as well as mining and refining/processing of industrial minerals.

tamsen_ikard said:

Why would they need a navy when they have land. They will have enough resources to build up massive missile arsenal and do to China what the houthis are doing to Israel. Perhaps do what Iran is doing to Israel. So, No I don't think there is any end to this war after the shooting starts without complete surrender.

What China needs is regime change, some kind of revolution or coup that brings a Pro-China government into power. I don't think Naval blockade is going to be sufficient. Some kind of massive strategic defeat or destruction is necessary to either bring about a change in government or do an actual invasion to bring about that change.

Click to expand...

And what is the Houthis to Israel if not a nuisance?

tamsen_ikard said:

I am talking about couping Japan, Philippines, Korea and Taiwan. What US does to others, China will eventually do to US allies.

Click to expand...

I agree with couping Japan. If china able to get Japan on their side it would be huge loss america. Infact america heavily rely on Japan to do maximum damage to china compare to other countries. We have no guarantee that phillipines will participate if they see america navy getting destroyed. Then there is south Korea. If they participate then it's obvious they have to go against north Korea. So will they join? Who knows. So again if Japan decided not to go war against china then its very likely rest of the country is not going to join the war.

tamsen_ikard said:

Why would they need a navy when they have land. They will have enough resources to build up massive missile arsenal and do to China what the houthis are doing to Israel. Perhaps do what Iran is doing to Israel. So, No I don't think there is any end to this war after the shooting starts without complete surrender.

Click to expand...

The premise is that Japan and Phillipines are under an effective blockade and already at war with China.
Given their geography, I would be very surprised if their electricity grids remain operational.
The vast majority of their population and industry hugs the coastline and can be reached with low-cost glide bombs and also low-cost piston-engine cruise missiles.

In such a scenario, how can they build up a massive missile arsenal to use against China?

tamsen_ikard said:

What China needs is regime change, some kind of revolution or coup that brings a Pro-China government into power. I don't think Naval blockade is going to be sufficient. Some kind of massive strategic defeat or destruction is necessary to either bring about a change in government or do an actual invasion to bring about that change.

Click to expand...

If the existing pro-US governments are discredited, we will see a different set of elites in control of Japan and the Philippines

Almond98 said:

I agree with couping Japan. If china able to get Japan on their side it would be huge loss america. Infact america heavily rely on Japan to do maximum damage to china compare to other countries. We have no guarantee that phillipines will participate if they see america navy getting destroyed. Then there is south Korea. If they participate then it's obvious they have to go against north Korea. So will they join? Who knows. So again if Japan decided not to go war against china then its very likely rest of the country is not going to join the war.

Click to expand...

I think it is pretty clear that South Korea will be neutral, for a variety of reasons.

AndrewS said:

The premise is that Japan and Phillipines are under an effective blockade and already at war with China.
Given their geography, I would be very surprised if their electricity grids remain operational.
The vast majority of their population and industry hugs the coastline and can be reached with low-cost glide bombs and also low-cost piston-engine cruise missiles.

In such a scenario, how can they build up a massive missile arsenal to use against China?

If the existing pro-US governments are discredited, we will see a different set of elites in control of Japan and the Philippines

Click to expand...

Well, as long as their eastern sea still safe, They can always get more and more logistic from US. Just like Ukraine and Vietnam. For Ukraine, it is their western border that is safe from Russia touch, so they can always get more weapons and logistic from Europe. While to Vietnam, it is their northern border that is safe, so they can always get more weapons from China and Soviet.

I understand that both Ukraine and Vietnam are different from Japan and Philippine case. But we shouldn't underestimate US ability of logistic transportation. If they can fight in the war against middle east countries without any logistical problem, then they can also send the logistic to Japan and Philippine without any problem. Unless China can disturb their logistic route in a serious way. And that's what I said previously about the Pacific Ocean.

dingyibvs said:

For one, let me repeat, China doesn't need to bring them to their knees. A blockade is enough to reduce them to a nuisance because they won't have the resources to build anything more than a pirate force. China isn't trying to annex Japan or the Philippines here, it's just trying to render them ineffective allies to the US.

For two, it doesn't need to be a full-scale war. If China wastes resources on a campaign of intense strategic bombing then it may turn out to be one. However, if China just destroy their navy and make it clear that their territorial integrity will be respected if they just stay neutral, then it becomes much easier for them to stomach the loss. This isn't much unlike what Israel did to Egypt in the 6-day war. Destroy the equipment that can cause trouble for you, take just enough land to deter future aggression, and then sue for peace, perhaps giving back whatever occupied land that isn't necessary for future operations back as an olive branch.

Lastly, for millennia China has never completely conquered any of those 3 countries and other than the past century or so was the center of their own civilizations. It absolutely does not require a complete takeover to turn back the clock.

Click to expand...

I agree, China doesn't need to bring them to the knees. A blockade is enough. But how? How can China perfectly blockade their eastern sea, when every small islands to the east of Japan and Philippine have Typhoons targeting China's Naval Flotilla? Not to mention that they have to face the full power of NATO armadas. Well, that's area under US total influence. It is easier for US allies to move around in Pacific Ocean than China to breakthrough into that area in a serious way.

If you read my earliest argument, this is the problem that I want to discuss with you. China need a foothold in the Pacific Island, to challenge US domination there, so US have to deal with that foothold first, before even thinking about contain China in South China Sea and Taiwan. When the Pacific Ocean become a contested area, the logistic flow to Japan, Philippine and even Taiwan will be disturbed, and they won't even start to challenge China or start their adventurism to antagonize China in South China Sea and Taiwan.

Brainsuker said:

I agree, China doesn't need to bring them to the knees. A blockade is enough. But how? How can China perfectly blockade their eastern sea, when every small islands to the east of Japan and Philippine have Typhoons targeting China's Naval Flotilla? Not to mention that they have to face the full power of NATO armadas. Well, that's area under US total influence. It is easier for US allies to move around in Pacific Ocean than China to breakthrough into that area in a serious way.

Click to expand...

Blockade is feasible. Commercial shipping companies would avoid those "dangerous areas" as what's happening in Red sea，if some ship got hit in the east of Japan/Philippine，no commercial ships would come anywhere close to those areas anymore.

Japan and Philippine can use own ship if international shipping companies such as Maersk doesn't want to serve them，but Japan and Philippine possess very limit numbers of ships. China can neutralised these ships by long range ASBM or J-36 carrying long range ASM

Brainsuker said:

Well, as long as their eastern sea still safe, They can always get more and more logistic from US. Just like Ukraine and Vietnam. For Ukraine, it is their western border that is safe from Russia touch, so they can always get more weapons and logistic from Europe. While to Vietnam, it is their northern border that is safe, so they can always get more weapons from China and Soviet.

I understand that both Ukraine and Vietnam are different from Japan and Philippine case. But we shouldn't underestimate US ability of logistic transportation. If they can fight in the war against middle east countries without any logistical problem, then they can also send the logistic to Japan and Philippine without any problem. Unless China can disturb their logistic route in a serious way. And that's what I said previously about the Pacific Ocean.

Click to expand...

All of Japan is within 1300km of mainland China.

That is a feasible distance for heavyweight air superiority fighters with aerial refuelling.
It is also within range of subsonic Tomahawk/CJ-10 cruise missiles and also higher-end hypersonic missiles
There are also very low-cost Shaheed-type piston-engine cruise missiles.

At the widest point, Japan is only 300km across, so they don't actually have that much strategic depth either
Plus the vast majority of targets are located on the coastline.
And we now see India publicising a low-cost glide bomb with a 180km range

---

At the current time, my guess is that China can blockade Japan, although it would be somewhat difficult to do.
But given how the military balance is changing, I think a Japan blockade would be relatively easy in 5 years

That will force Japan to make some difficult choices regarding its "alliance" with the US.

---

A similar sort of rationale applies to the Philippines. They do have more strategic depth with the furthest point being 2200km from China. But they barely have any Air or Naval forces. China also has a trio of bases in the South China Seas which are only 500km away.