Rand Report : US Could be Defeated

Raptoreyes said:

I doubt you can have a limited confrontation in Asia between just the US and China. If Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea were attacked all those just named and the US would come to the aid of each other. In any conflict the Chinese could probable demand and get the help of North Korea at minimum and likely many of the more paternalistic and authoritarian pacific rim countries as well.

Click to expand...

You seem to have this vision of a Grand Confrontation between Good and Evil. Not gonna happen. What could Burma, for example, conceivably gain from attacking the hypothetical allies? Why would North Korea act any more co-ordinatedly with China then they did in 1950, and if they did decide to attack, what makes you think it would be something which they have fully consulted the Chinese about? I remind you that they did not consult with the Chinese about their missiles or nuke tests, and were not notably sympathetic to Chinese interests, either. China has not much leverage they can AFFORD to use on North Korea. Think about it. And any attack they might conceivably do would be against South Korea... opening up a new front. That is not in broad accord to Chinese interests.

I am also curious as to what makes you think an attack on Taiwan would mean active Japanese and South Korean support. Or any combination of that. How would say a naval clash newar Chunxiao Field in East Sea involve the Taiwanese? How would an invasion of Kinman trigger a South Korean response beyond the usual logistical support (if that) from treaty of American forces if they were involved? Last time I checked, the Asian NATO idea was still just an idea being floated.

Raptoreyes said:

I agree Taiwan is the most likely flash point but I would submit that the mainlanders will wait for some sort of energy crisis before going after Taiwan. Most wars require an economic component and not merely a social one (not even the huge difference between a noble democracy like Taiwan and the authoritarianism that imposes itself upon those who live on the mainland.) If any conflict erupts between China and Taiwan the oil under the spratly reefs will play a large part.

Click to expand...

That squabbling lot? 'Noble'? What's your definition of an ignoble democracy? Venezuela's? I don't suppose you even COUNT Russia as a democracy? I strongly suggest we keep the editorial to ourselves in future, yes? Also... umm, no. Sprately does not figure much into Sino-Taiwanese relations. The Taiwanese have an island base, and send the police (yes, police) there occasionally (used to be navy, but changed to police few years back)... and that is it. Do you SERIOUSLY suggest that after waiting for more than sixty years, the People's Republic would go to war with Taiwan over UNPROVEN and certainly UNEXPLOITED (proper surveying and exploitation of oil will take at least a DECADE. Consider the example of North Sea. This isn't a game of Rise of Nations, you don't just pop an oil derrick on a field. And they will STAY that way, that area is far too unstable for oil companies to invest, and once they start investing, it will get MORE unstable as the other countries perceive the investing party to be consolidating claims) reserves? And I think you seriously understimate nationalistic sentiments in China and how even an evil authoritarian regime must respond to it. I direct you to look at the 1999 embassy bombing, 2001 Hainan incident, 2005 anti-Japanese demostrations. I am going to suggest to you that they were not all of them just local commissar rounding up the peasants and make them reluctantly go out on demostration. In fact, many of those took China completely by surprise. Why was there a news blackout of the anti-Japanese demostrations initially?

China is NOT a power that is out there to twirl moustache and steal oil. Certainly not when the means of stealing would be far more damaging than what they could conceivably get. You have reminded us repeatedly of US naval power, and this is something I am sure sensible PLA war-planners are well aware of. Ask yourself if the PLAN can or thinks it can protect the long supply line of oil from Gulf of Persia, East Africa and West Africa to China. And then think about how much oil China can conceivably gain from seizing non-existant oil reserves in Spratlies.

I think you are making the PRC not only criminal, but also criminally stupid.

When it turns out that they are NOT, then you have a problem.

Raptoreyes said:

"Denial of the region to US forces" would require the ability to sink most of the american fleet with few looses. Currently China does not have the ability to win blue water engagements with the US fleet in blue water under standard tatical conditions. New techonolgies or a state of extreme over extention of american forces would have to take place. China is unlikely to strike at this point unless US NAVAL forces are too thinly spread.

Click to expand...

China does not NEED to win blue-water engagement. Keeping a 300-400 km zone of relative exclusion to American surface assets already make a big difference to response time and combat engagement range, and the PLAN can make a stab at that without ever leaving land-based air-cover.

And this also assumes an IMMEDIATE American war-response, as opposed to a lot of tense stand offs and political manoeuvring. Time, risks and such calculations factor into it, and America cannot simply recall 'most of the fleet' (nor, frankly, should America NEED to) and send them all to China.

Denial is a complicated concept, it is not just 'sinking'. It is calculation of risks and time constrains, also. And any attempt to attack mainland China would not be a risk-free proposition.

Raptoreyes said:

The US army may be over extended due to its stumbling attempts to free the middle east from tyrannical religious governments and secure the free trade of oil. On the other hand the US Navy is not anywhere near taxed. The Chinese can only hope to catch at least 2-3 entire carrier groups out of position. The Chinese have yet to develop an effective counter that we know of to ultra quiet US submarines of the Los Angeles Class generation, let alone the Sea Wolf or upcoming Virgina class.

I have a feeling the Rand Report talks about some sort of ultra rapid shock and awe campaign that completes its objectives before the bulk of American forces can properly get into position.

Click to expand...

American naval supremacy is never in question, I am thinking. Even PLAN war-planners are talking about a truly blue-water navy in the 2040-2050 timeframe. Whatever they are, stupidly ambitious and aggressive they are NOT.

Raptoreyes said:

This is mostly due to the fact that the Viet Cong successfully blended into the South Vietnamese areas despite being despised by the peasantry in both the North and Southern regions. Never the less the clear and hold plan that the USMC wanted to carry out was never implemented on a large scale (marines and solders living along side people in the larger villages) in favor of a strategy that was micromanaged by of the most incompetent managers in American history. Yes I speak of none other then Robert McNamara.

Click to expand...

ff


Robert McNamara was hardly such an incompetent manager. Before getting involved in politics, he managed and reformed Ford Motor Company into a prosperous corporate giant. Now incompetent military manager would be more suitable. Let us not forget it was McNamara who was instrumental in helping advert Nuclear annihilation of the Cuban Missle crisis. The man made some bad choices that ended up killing alot of people but it was ultimately up to Johnson to implement them. At any rate I admit that he certainly shares the blame for the quagmire that was Vietnam.



In the more relevant matter of force denial, I recall that one need not sink an aircraft carrier to put leave it incapacitated. A well placed LACM targeting the control tower (er the bridge I suppose); or the flight deck to prevent landings and takeoffs can accomplish the objective without the need of a blue water navy.

Edit: Sorry Assassin, I know it wasn't you. I quoted your reply to Raptor by mistake.

Uh! I didn't post that.

The United States will only attack countries with NO WMD !

Bush was lying from the very beginning when he invaded Iraq, do you think Saddam Hussien would not have used WMD if he had them ?, if I was him I would and have every right to do so and most of the world would have supported Iraq for doing so. The large lost of American lives say 20,0000 US troops would have wavired the American public's will to go on ! Now this only makes me more convinced there are still nukes in Cuba !

Now now children, don't hyperventilate. The Rand Corporation's hyperbolic report is nothing to be surprised about or afraid of. Basically it just echoes one of the defining trends of the early 21st century; the strategic rise of China and the global rearrangement of the power structure that it is bringing about. That's the reason for this website's exsistence. I believe that although China by no means has an ideal government or is the ideal superpower, its rise is a good thing because it restores the balance of power and the Great Power interactions that have kept mankind stable, rather than leaving the world as it is today, with vast swaths of the world having no Great Power minder. That breeds war, and instability. A multipolar balancing world is the natural order of things. A return to it should not be feared.

Besides this thread is Gollevainen-bait (or at least some posts in it are). So stop being ff.

Besides this thread is Gollevainen-bait (or at least some posts in it are). So stop being

Click to expand...

extremely well said...

I think we have had our share of politics for now. Thread closed