There is also the quandary—from the Chinese perspective—of lacking key resources, primarily petroleum. If a protracted conflict ensues, the limits of their supply logistics will be severely tested. It also doesn't help that they are lacking in allies. With Russia bogged down in the west, and North Korea quite limited, who else could they turn to?
The South OF China Sea Thread
- Thread starter CluelessOne
- Start date
Exactly, small and steady gains. Trying to capture any part of the second island chain before any part of the first is cleared of soon-to-be-hostile military forces is the opposite of that.
Is this some sort of April Fools Day question or a serious inquiry? Assuming for a serious inquiry that the conflict remained sub-nuke, why would the US invade mainland China? Just the size alone of the military required to accomplish such a feat would dwarf Operation Overlord by an order of magnitude or two. Modern military forces don't come anywhere near WWII size.
I can't imagine any circumstances under which the US would invade China. Hitting Chinese bases actively sortieing ships or aircraft that were assaulting Taiwan, possibly. Hitting those bases if they were attacking US assets, more likely. But that would be with standoff weapons, not troops.
The bigger issue all of these war games don't take into account is the action in other theaters, particularly non-military. While China is launching an amphibious assault on Taiwan the US & Europe will be:
- Impounding or seizing Chinese flag vessels in all controlled ports
- Freezing all Chinese banking and monetary assets
- Massive sanction / embargo - total cessation of trade
- The Oligarch treatment for all top CCP Chinese officials (asset seizure, persona-non-grata, etc.)
And, it's one thing to invade—even if successful—and another to hold conquered land. The Iraq war should be a cautionary tale on this.
The obvious answer is to turn Russia into a client state. Overtly or covertly, either way can guarantee China Russian oil for a long time. Doubly, doing so might prevent other powers that have needed Russian oil from being able to use it against China in the same conflict.
As for naval engagement, I think China is in for a nasty surprise if they think their compliment of smaller ships and diesel-electric subs are going to be able to go toe-to-toe with the American navy. They only have one modern aircraft carrier in a class like ours, and I'm not 100% sure it's even in use yet. Plus, we have those goofy big Zumwalt destroyers (which to my understanding have been deployed in the region for the past couple years anyway) that could be a nasty surprise for any Chinese ships that stumble into one.
Further, if we assume Taiwan is lost outright, then China would have to do a lot more open ocean work. A place the USN could very effectively just do denial at distance. Especially with so much of China's navy not built for deep water work.
In short, I think China could use its navy to stop an invasion of the mainland, if a nation were to try that. But I don't think China could do much force projection in any conflict that included the USN on the other side.
That's what I meant. If they're active in the Taiwan Straits, and if they're hitting land and coastal targets, how is that not an invasion, even if they don't technically put feet on the ground?
If some enemy force was shelling the US coast, even Hawaii, it would be considered an act of war.
What is it about the PLAN that makes it 'not built for deep water work'? Apart from the lack of fleet carriers?
1. Its sub fleet is mostly made of diesel-electrics that are designed for littoral/shallows work. Specifically intended to hide in places where large ships and large subs would have trouble chasing them to.
2. Their corvettes and missile boats are also built as littoral ships, not deep water ships.
3. Basically meaning only a minority of their current fleet is intended for force projection as the US sees it.
Here is the DoD's report on the matter (well, on a lot, really), showing that the PLAN is in transition to open seas and far seas capabilities, but the key phrase is "in transition" (Page 50-58 is the PLAN section): https://s3.documentcloud.org/docume...s-involving-the-peoples-republic-of-china.pdf
So, in order to understand why the US would invade China, you would have to ask, what natural resources does China have that US corporations can plunder. Oil? No. Lithium? The US has more. Rare earth elements? Maybe. The reality is, the only thing that China really has more of than the US is people, and we have trouble taking care of our own. The US has about the same chances of invading China as I have of winning a billion dollars in the lottery. And those chances are nil, as I look at the lottery as a supplemental tax for people who are bad at math.
With that said, I think the worry from the standpoint of Marine readiness to engage Chinese troops is more based on supporting our allies in that region. While I pray every day that it does not come to this, I feel like it is inevitable that eventually China will keep taking countries and territories in the seas and along their borders until someone stops them. And unfortunately, I think that the US, despite going through its "Fall" phase of the rise and fall of our empire, is still the only political power on Earth that can stop them.
With that said, I think the worry from the standpoint of Marine readiness to engage Chinese troops is more based on supporting our allies in that region. While I pray every day that it does not come to this, I feel like it is inevitable that eventually China will keep taking countries and territories in the seas and along their borders until someone stops them. And unfortunately, I think that the US, despite going through its "Fall" phase of the rise and fall of our empire, is still the only political power on Earth that can stop them.
Hopefully, it will never come to that. I consider any military action by China would be suicidal. Though, I am not sure how the CCP are thinking today. I remember the more timid time of 2000s (a lot of talk but no action).
Please. We will never invade mainland China. With boots, Strykers, M1-A1s or Daisy BB rifles. Ever.
It is just to big, to many people (remember all those un-married males they have, a lot) and does not have anything we need to lose lives over.
Troops in the Philippines, Taiwan maybe. Mainland, no.
It is just to big, to many people (remember all those un-married males they have, a lot) and does not have anything we need to lose lives over.
Troops in the Philippines, Taiwan maybe. Mainland, no.
That's why I'm only saying 'possibly' the US would attack Chinese coastal installations if they started an invasion of Taiwan. If they were very careful not to hit US assets like a CVG then we may not escalate to hitting coastal installations directly attacking Taiwan. Not sure what our response would be here - it's 'strategically ambiguous' by policy. If we committed US aircraft piloted by US pilots to repel the invasion and a few got shot down, that may not prompt hitting Chinese coastal naval/air bases. Not sure. If they came after a carrier group with aircraft they'd splash the aircraft. If they hit the CVG with a large salvo of surface to surface missiles then I could see hitting those launchers on the Chinese mainland. Maybe. IF they managed to do any damage or kill US personnel not directly in the combat zone.
Tough situation, but the economic fallout would be worse in many ways than a hot conventional war over a fairly small island.
I thought Taiwan had rockets aimed at the mainland or at least the coastal cities.
If the American fleet had to go near Taiwan, it would probably make sense to take out land to sea missile launchers.
As opposed to relying only on anti-missile defenses for your expensive naval hardware.
Extending that further, take out air bases so that they're not sending fighters and bombers at our fleets. And then eventually crossing into civilian infrastructure targets which could be purposed for military purposes or which support military assets. So things like power stations for instance.
So even without landing forces on the mainland, there would be a big firefight, considered an act of war. Because Pearl Harbor triggered the US into WWII, sending forces to 2 different continents and the whole Pacific theater.
If the American fleet had to go near Taiwan, it would probably make sense to take out land to sea missile launchers.
As opposed to relying only on anti-missile defenses for your expensive naval hardware.
Extending that further, take out air bases so that they're not sending fighters and bombers at our fleets. And then eventually crossing into civilian infrastructure targets which could be purposed for military purposes or which support military assets. So things like power stations for instance.
So even without landing forces on the mainland, there would be a big firefight, considered an act of war. Because Pearl Harbor triggered the US into WWII, sending forces to 2 different continents and the whole Pacific theater.
Invasion is just a potential part to a war, but rarely required. The US end state for such a conflict is putting the PLA back in PRC borders.
People haven't been reading USNI last weekend opinion piece. Currently the most provocative things is Philippines.
China’s Attacks on Philippine Resupply Missions Test 70-Year-Old Defense Pact
This is PRC doing FU to international rules (UNCLOS) near it's shore. Also, forget its date, but this also
Japan Stands Up Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade, Electronic Warfare Unit for Defense of Southwest Islands.
This is PRC doing a Google and Microsoft thing, Embrace, Subvert, Extend, Popularize, and ultimately Extinguish. And they are doing it on rules that's the bedrocks of post World War 2 relatively stable world.
China’s Attacks on Philippine Resupply Missions Test 70-Year-Old Defense Pact
This is PRC doing FU to international rules (UNCLOS) near it's shore. Also, forget its date, but this also
Japan Stands Up Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade, Electronic Warfare Unit for Defense of Southwest Islands.
This is PRC doing a Google and Microsoft thing, Embrace, Subvert, Extend, Popularize, and ultimately Extinguish. And they are doing it on rules that's the bedrocks of post World War 2 relatively stable world.
Sure but how often have nations been able to control the escalation paths in wars?
If the US only engages Chinese air and naval assets launched from China, the US will take more losses than to cut off the sources of those assets.
That necessarily means targeting land-based assets and if China sees their coastal assets degraded significantly, do they just go back with their tail tucked between their legs or do they escalate?
A big part of China confronting the US militarily is about face-saving and this whole nationalist thing about never being humiliated again.
It seems there's a good chance that once they go in on fighting the US, they're all-in.
If the US only engages Chinese air and naval assets launched from China, the US will take more losses than to cut off the sources of those assets.
That necessarily means targeting land-based assets and if China sees their coastal assets degraded significantly, do they just go back with their tail tucked between their legs or do they escalate?
A big part of China confronting the US militarily is about face-saving and this whole nationalist thing about never being humiliated again.
It seems there's a good chance that once they go in on fighting the US, they're all-in.
Maybe, but there are serious questions on those assertions:
- Xi has to think that throwing 30-40% of the entire Chinese population out of work to take what will be a bombed-out island is better for his and the party's survival than not. The entire export economy at a near halt, the RMB cratered, asset prices in even more free-fall than now, and the stock market obliterated. Hard to save face under those circumstances. He'll have to go 10X harder into the Maoist police state than he has so far to control a population that suddenly has no jobs and the wealth of the last 30 years gone.
- Escalate to what? They're on the other side of the world. They shoot at our ships and aircraft, we blow up some launchers and runways right on the coast (1/1000 their overall combat capability), and from that they escalate to intercontinental nuclear suicide?
- Not sure actually hitting coastal bases would even do much for us militarily. The open ocean is a lot different than the fields and mud of Ukraine. As long as we have ammo we can swat missiles, aircraft, and ships. China has a huge number of installations on their coast - not sure we'd even have enough conventional munitions in a CVG (or even two or three) to make much of a dent there.
If we destroyed Qingdao, Ningbo, and Zhanjiang, you would seriously interfere with China's command and control for the navy.
Well this should be interesting to see China's reaction...
I think it's the first time Japan has joined in the joint naval drills in the South of China sea, working along Australia, the US and the Philippines.
I think it's the first time Japan has joined in the joint naval drills in the South of China sea, working along Australia, the US and the Philippines.
It's long past time Japan started committing serious budget to building Veritech class fighting machines. Though there's also the political will needed to do it - I do admire Japan's commitment to non-belligerence. They're one of the few populations in human history that have actually learned a tough lesson and kept that lesson alive for several generations past the direct bitter experience.
In the long run, though, as much as David may want to adhere to a pacifist existence, having Goliath eyeing him rather hungrily next door should eventually change his mind.
In the long run, though, as much as David may want to adhere to a pacifist existence, having Goliath eyeing him rather hungrily next door should eventually change his mind.
Japan is deepening its relationship with Philippines. According to this they are even thinking of getting access to Philippines bases.
Now who do Vietnam is more amendable to partner? South Korea, Japan, or Australia? Or maybe Australia should do more with Malaysia and Brunei.
Now who do Vietnam is more amendable to partner? South Korea, Japan, or Australia? Or maybe Australia should do more with Malaysia and Brunei.
Regarding Vietnam, wouldn't it be in their interests to partner with immediately neighboring nations, such as Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos? They are close to the heat, and would be in their collective interest to deal with the emerging threats. Or are there disputes, rivalries, and/or conflicting commitments that stand in the way?
Currently Cambodia and Laos is more amendable to PRC. Cambodia kicked out the US, demolished Ream base etc.
Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021...es-closer-into-chinas-orbit-us-tightens-curbs,
https://thediplomat.com/2017/04/why-did-cambodia-just-downgrade-us-military-ties-again/.
Meanwhile Laos is such a poor state, mismanaged by the government, and nobody but PRC is willing to extend credit to them. I would say Western government diplomacy failing to engage them that the country is falling into PRC client state status.
The PRC is using Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia to drive a wedge and paralyze ASEAN from reaching consensus on South from China Sea.
Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021...es-closer-into-chinas-orbit-us-tightens-curbs,
https://thediplomat.com/2017/04/why-did-cambodia-just-downgrade-us-military-ties-again/.
Meanwhile Laos is such a poor state, mismanaged by the government, and nobody but PRC is willing to extend credit to them. I would say Western government diplomacy failing to engage them that the country is falling into PRC client state status.
The PRC is using Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia to drive a wedge and paralyze ASEAN from reaching consensus on South from China Sea.
Cambodia has a very conflicted relationship with Vietnam, with hundreds of years of border disputes to draw upon for grievances. There is also the thing that Vietnam did invade Cambodia in living memory; that is what actually ended the terror of the Khmer Rogue. The Khmer wanted to expand their operations into parts of Vietnam, so the Vietnamese put an end to it.
The fact that Vietnam essentially liberated the Cambodians from Pol Pot's regime of terror and atrocities hasn't stopped subsequent Cambodian governments from using that incident to fan the flames on anti-Vietnamese sentiments. That being said, it isn't like all grievances the Cambodians have over recent Vietnamese conduct are without merit.
Laos is ... in a very real way still a pre-industrial state. From the perspective of a modern lands conflict there is not exactly a lot it would add in capability.
The fact that Vietnam essentially liberated the Cambodians from Pol Pot's regime of terror and atrocities hasn't stopped subsequent Cambodian governments from using that incident to fan the flames on anti-Vietnamese sentiments. That being said, it isn't like all grievances the Cambodians have over recent Vietnamese conduct are without merit.
Laos is ... in a very real way still a pre-industrial state. From the perspective of a modern lands conflict there is not exactly a lot it would add in capability.
Last edited:
Even though Vietnam has no love for China, it's in their best interests not to poke the bear. Hanoi is in rocket artillery range of their common border, and while it's unlikely that China would win any conflict with Vietnam using any reasonable definition of "win", there's practically no scenario where Vietnam comes out ahead. They'll keep doing what they're doing, making nice with the US, keeping China at a polite distance, and making themselves as hard a target as possible.
The WaPo has an article up about increasing tensions in the South China Sea. China is getting more aggressive about trying to prevent the Philippines from resupplying the Sierra Madre (a ship the Philippines grounded on the Second Thomas Shoal years ago).
So many resources wasted by China.
Gift link:
So many resources wasted by China.
Gift link:
So if I read this right, the Philippines sunk a ship on a shoal and effectively turned it into a military outpost. Clever. Now they’re doing “maintenance work,” which China claims is actually expanding the outpost. The Philippines deny this. China wants supply missions to be declared first and inspect them, and the Philippines decline and note that they will invoke a defense treaty with the US if any of their soldiers die in what seems to be a situation where an accident is increasingly inevitable.
The Philippines should ask the right to inspect all the ships resupplying all those artificial island bases the Chinese built around.
The hypocrisy of the CCP is quite something to behold
The role of US Coast Guard to improve relations with other Pacific Nations should not be underestimated. These are the kinds of work that should be done everyday. I would argue it should be done in South from China Sea also.
Meanwhile a live fire exercise during this year Balikatan is interrupted by an errant PLAN spy boat. My question is, should they stop the live fire exercise? The place and time of the exercise is well published. If a PLA spy boat is exercising their innocent passage rights and wander in front of a well announced live fire cannon drills, should the US sailors stop firing?
Edit: After all it is a multi national military exercise. Language barriers and misunderstanding exist when an Australian range officer, a French crew chief supervisor, and a Filipino gun crew is doing their exercise to the utmost professionalism. They were just trying their best to hit the floating targets wink and nudges.
Meanwhile a live fire exercise during this year Balikatan is interrupted by an errant PLAN spy boat. My question is, should they stop the live fire exercise? The place and time of the exercise is well published. If a PLA spy boat is exercising their innocent passage rights and wander in front of a well announced live fire cannon drills, should the US sailors stop firing?
Edit: After all it is a multi national military exercise. Language barriers and misunderstanding exist when an Australian range officer, a French crew chief supervisor, and a Filipino gun crew is doing their exercise to the utmost professionalism. They were just trying their best to hit the floating targets wink and nudges.
Last edited:
So today(?) Chinese Navy Admiral Dong Jun who is also the Chinese Minister of National Defense gave a speech at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrW6yYhfRc4
Some of the gems of the speech is how he kept on referring to "our people" when talking about the people of the Asia Pacific compared to those of "unnamed outside powers"...
He also, I shit you not said that "China’s strategic culture is anchored in universal love and nonaggression," and that Beijing has never sought "hegemony or expansion."
You can imagine how that went down.
He also warned of their ‘resolute’ military action against Taiwan’s ‘fanatical’ forces and that ‘there is a limit to our restraint’ against the Philippines.
He also said that the DPP leadership, "Should be nailed to the pillar of shame in history." Also that Taiwan's democratically-elected government are "betraying" their Chinese ancestry.
He also claims that China has exercised jurisdiction over Taiwan for more than a thousand years...
As you might imagine more than a few eyebrows got raised at this. I'd be having a giant party if someone Soleimani'd this shitfuck tomorrow. Trying to fucking intimidate and scare the entire region? Yeah that's going to go down like a ton of bricks followed by a shit chaser.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrW6yYhfRc4
Some of the gems of the speech is how he kept on referring to "our people" when talking about the people of the Asia Pacific compared to those of "unnamed outside powers"...
He also, I shit you not said that "China’s strategic culture is anchored in universal love and nonaggression," and that Beijing has never sought "hegemony or expansion."
You can imagine how that went down.
He also warned of their ‘resolute’ military action against Taiwan’s ‘fanatical’ forces and that ‘there is a limit to our restraint’ against the Philippines.
He also said that the DPP leadership, "Should be nailed to the pillar of shame in history." Also that Taiwan's democratically-elected government are "betraying" their Chinese ancestry.
He also claims that China has exercised jurisdiction over Taiwan for more than a thousand years...
As you might imagine more than a few eyebrows got raised at this. I'd be having a giant party if someone Soleimani'd this shitfuck tomorrow. Trying to fucking intimidate and scare the entire region? Yeah that's going to go down like a ton of bricks followed by a shit chaser.
Last edited:
CCP logic: When the entire universe is your "historic territory since the beginning of time" then you have never seeked expansion.
Allied forces logic is you try that shit and we got a whole buncha hellfires with your name on it.CCP logic: When the entire universe is your "historic territory since the beginning of time" then you have never seeked expansion.
I mean we joke but that's how pro-CCP people buy into the whole "China never invaded other countries unlike the US/west" propaganda.
The US and SEA countries forming alliances against CCP expansion in the South China Sea is always spun as US imperialist being jealous of the rise of China and thus denying China's rightful claim to historic territories and those idiots laps it up and it's impossible to change their minds on this matter. We are so fucked.
I wonder how that works for territory where according to science no Han Chinese could ever have set a foot...
Let's say lava that hasn't cooled yet?
Let's say lava that hasn't cooled yet?
They create new "science" and rewrite history to make it work.
Like this:
English is just a Mandarin dialect, Chinese scholars claim
World Civilisation Research Association argue Shakespeare was an 'illiterate actor' and his works were in fact written by Samuel Johnson, author of the Johnson English Dictionary
It's a fucking cult - the Party is never wrong, if science and history say something contrary to the Party narrative, then it is the science and history that is wrong, not the Party.
They just cant help themselves when it comes to proving Orwell right