South China Sea and China

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by carl

You're right. If we lost the first line of barrier islands (Dayuhan, I know we don't own those islands but you know what I mean your protestations about semantics to the contrary), Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, the game would be over anyway. We would have to get good at groveling.

I don't think it's just semantics. It betrays an underlying assumption that those places must either be "ours" or "theirs".

Do you really think the Chinese intend to invade Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines?

Even in the very unlikely event that the Chinese did occupy all three, why would the US have to grovel? What's there that we need? It would suck for the Japanese, Taiwanese, and Filipinos, and it would certainly suck for me (not that I'm specially worried about it) but Americans could just sit back and watch the Chinese choke on trying to hold what they'd taken. Occupation is a pain in the a$$.

[carl]

Originally Posted by Ken White

How many do they have, how well do they work, how good are the crews?

Well according to Wiki, they have 58 attack boats, including six nukes. Some of those conventional boats are Kilos. Don't know the answers to how well they work nor how good the crews are. They don't seem eager to convey that information. It would be prudent I think to plan on their knowing what they are doing.

Originally Posted by Ken White

Uh, okay -- what do you call Korea? I don't recall Japan being considered as on of those barrier islands in this discussion, I acknowledge that it could be so considered but then so could Australia...

Korea is a barrier peninsula, which is even better as a barrier than an island. My failure about Japan. I figured it is off mainland China and not far away. Its physical configuration is ideal for a barrier and it is in the first island chain as noted in the Economist article mentioned by Ray. So I just naturally included it. Australia is kind of remote to be much of a barrier to anyplace but Tasmania.

Originally Posted by Ken White

You have a rationale for all that or is it just a thought?

Well I figure it this way. There is a good chance we would let Taiwan be taken without a fight. But little chance we would let Japan and the Philippines be taken without a fight (Dayuhan, before you say anything, this is a what if). So if those two places were taken it would mean there had been a big fight and we had lost. Then would start the groveling unless we wanted to lose other places too.

Originally Posted by Ken White

Since you mention it, you seem to be determined to take things as personal attacks when none is intended...

Me? No, I see generosity and tolerance everywhere I look.

Originally Posted by Ken White

I've read most of what you've written on this topic and warfighting in general and disagree with about all of it. Somehow, "the risk of making a totalitarian police state cross with us.' is not going to keep me awake at night. Yeah, we have a history of doing that. How did that work out for them?

Well as far as the almost total disagreement goes, either I am about always wrong, which isn't so. You are about always wrong, which isn't so. Or something else that I can't think of. (Feel free to use any of those as a straight line.)

Didn't work out well for them at all. I tried to imply that with the sentence structure, but failed. I'll have to improve my sentence structure.

[carl]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

I don't think it's just semantics. It betrays an underlying assumption that those places must either be "ours" or "theirs".

In the sense that they can't use them and we can if need be; either they are ours or theirs. If you see anything beyond that, you see what you see.

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Do you really think the Chinese intend to invade Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines?

Taiwan, they mean to have it eventually. I figure invasion if they have to. As far as the other two, it was a hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Even in the very unlikely event that the Chinese did occupy all three, why would the US have to grovel? What's there that we need? It would suck for the Japanese, Taiwanese, and Filipinos, and it would certainly suck for me (not that I'm specially worried about it) but Americans could just sit back and watch the Chinese choke on trying to hold what they'd taken. Occupation is a pain in the a$$.

As I told Ken, if we lost Japan and the Philippines, it would be because we had lost a big fight and lost it big, like the Japanese lost big in WWII. We had better damn well grovel or we would lose a lot more since, if we lost as big as the Japanese in WWII, there wouldn't be a darn thing we could do to stop them from taking anything at all they pleased.

What is there in Japan we need? Nothing at all. Nothing.

I doubt we would take much satisfaction in watching Red Chinese administrative problems right after we had been shattered militarily.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by carl

What would this force consist of? How would you do it?

More submarines, fewer surface ships, smaller carriers and more of them -- all with longer legs and carrying fewer birds, more long range aircraft, AF and Navy, very stealthy insertion and extraction capability, land ,sea and air. The technology for all that has been experimented with since the 40s; we can build it, we have elected not to have it due to conservative leadership and congressional pressure to avoid excessive military capability. Congress does not want the Armed Forces to be too capable...

If the PLA was ensconced on Taiwan, they could re-enforce from across the Taiwan Strait. Not very far. We would have to come over from North America.

Exactly. That's why Taiwan should be conceded to them; they accrue no real advantage from its possession, we accrue a major military problem by trying to hold it when possession would be nice but is far from imperative and it is in range of almost all their systems.

We can afford to trade space and time, they cannot -- unless we stupidly provide them a target within their capability.

Only if they don't still make sense. Forrest was to reputed to have said "Keep up the scare". Made sense 4X30-40 years ago. Still does.

Forrest's horses made sense 4X30-40 years ago...

Dien Bien Phu made no sense at 2X30 years ago. Nor did Wake Island almost 2X40 years ago. They still don't.

That the 'scare' exists today is evidenced by their rushed space program and some of their other things you've cited. With all their problems, they wouldn't be spending that money unless they were worried.

154 Tomahawks means 154 1,000 pound warheads.

That's one boat. There are three other SSGNs (with almost certainly more on the way) plus a number of other Subs that can carry fewer. As the Actress said to the Bishop, it's not what you have, it's how you use it...

The farther away the base, the longer that would take.

Obviously, so the trick is to get as close as one can while staying slightly out of the opponents reach -- that idea's even older than Forrest.

HE Tridents? Congress was wise. That would have been a real expensive way to miss.

Congress has never been wise in my lifetime. Tridents have a fair CEP.

Buck Rogers in my view. Looks cool though and will probably show up on the next iteration of "24".

Dunno, never really watched the Buck Rogers shorts and have never watched '24.' However, if one is wedded to the Cavalry and to island hopping, I can understand that it might be too futuristic.

Then why did you ask? I already thought about it.

Because the fact that you might have given it serious thought was and is not obvious. This isn't a good medium for determining nuance or who might be arguing just for the sake of arguing and stating positions that make no sense to most others just to get a controversy going.

I'll concede that, though I am older than you believe.

As you don't know what I believe, that's a sorta questionable statement.

This has gone on to the point of no return. I think we've crossed the line between admirable persistence and obtuse stubbornness. So I'll leave the floor to you with one thought:

Defense is important but it will not win the contest. Forrest knew that...

[carl]

Originally Posted by Ken White

Exactly. That's why Taiwan should be conceded to them; they accrue no real advantage from its possession, we accrue a major military problem by trying to hold it when possession would be nice but is far from imperative and it is in range of almost all their systems.

I see it just the opposite.

Originally Posted by Ken White

We can afford to trade space and time, they cannot -- unless we stupidly provide them a target within their capability.

I am not sure space vs. time works in sea fighting like it does in land fighting. You can't fall back to the next line of trenches.

Originally Posted by Ken White

That's one boat. There are three other SSGNs (with almost certainly more on the way) plus a number of other Subs that can carry fewer. As the Actress said to the Bishop, it's not what you have, it's how you use it...

That still makes the rough equivalent of 77 2,000 pound JDAMs per boat, or 308 for all four. That isn't very many if you are trying to impress a continental power, almost none. Perfect targeting would make a big difference though.

Originally Posted by Ken White

Tridents have a fair CEP.

That is not the problem. The problem would be figuring out what to aim at and exactly what you are aiming at, at ICBM ranges.

Originally Posted by Ken White

Because the fact that you might have given it serious thought was and is not obvious. This isn't a good medium for determining nuance or who might be arguing just for the sake of arguing and stating positions that make no sense to most others just to get a controversy going.

I have given it serious thought. Despite that, or because of that, I still disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Ken White

As you don't know what I believe, that's a sorta questionable statement.

Well, no, you said "This is probably your first post war interlude." It isn't. So I just thought it reasonable to think you believed me younger than I am.

Originally Posted by Ken White

This has gone on to the point of no return. I think we've crossed the line between admirable persistence and obtuse stubbornness. So I'll leave the floor to you with one thought:

Defense is important but it will not win the contest. Forrest knew that...

Ok.

[Ray]

U.S. cruise missile base in Guam as a major threat to China
http://www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/24525

I am not too sure about how one rates this on the reliability scale.

Pentagon 'Hedge' Strategy Targets China
http://www.rense.com/general70/penet.htm

From Washington Times.

Pentagon Moves Cruise Missiles To Guam
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/missiles-00d.html

[Ray]

Moderator's Note

This item has been posted before on the main thread on China as a Superpower and it would be appropriate to comment there:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=4366(ends).

This would indeed indicate that there are internal problems within China as some claimed.

Rotting From Within
Investigating the massive corruption of the Chinese military.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...thin?page=full


How far this would be correct, one wonders.

[slapout9]

link to NYT article and MSNBC video of India's "China Killer" long range ICBM nuclear missille



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47111582...ew_york_times/

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by carl

In the sense that they can't use them and we can if need be; either they are ours or theirs.

And if a given party prefers to be used by neither?

Originally Posted by carl

As far as the other two, it was a hypothetical.

Very hypothetical indeed.

[Ken White]

are a master of understatement...

[carl]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

And if a given party prefers to be used by neither?

That may not be one of the choices available. And it seems, most of the parties have picked a side already.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by carl

Well as far as the almost total disagreement goes, either I am about always wrong, which isn't so. You are about always wrong, which isn't so. Or something else that I can't think of. (Feel free to use any of those as a straight line.)

Carl, for what it's worth I believe Ken is playing devils advocate to help you shape your argument.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by carl

That may not be one of the choices available. And it seems, most of the parties have picked a side already.

Who says there are only two sides?

You seem to there's some epic battle between China and the US for dominance of the Pacific, and thus the world, and that all others must choose one side or the other. I'm not sure that view is widely shared around the Pacific.

[carl]

Dayuhan:

Maybe you are entirely right. Maybe nothing at all is shaping up. But in the event, sides will be chosen, and there will be only two. It looks to me as if Vietnam at least has chosen one. In the event, sides will have to be chosen if the party is to have any say at all in its fate.

Speaking of Vietnam, I wonder if they are the ones who will prove to be a catalyst. The don't seem to like China much and their history indicates that they don't much like being messed with.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by carl

Maybe you are entirely right. Maybe nothing at all is shaping up.

Something's always shaping up, but assumptions about what it's going to be are likely to be wrong.

Originally Posted by carl

But in the event, sides will be chosen, and there will be only two.

That would depend on the event. I suspect that if the US and China ever mixed it up a lot of countries in the region will try to stay neutral and out of it to the greatest degree possible... though I think this a most unlikely eventuality. As I've said before, I think the most probable conflict scenario in the medium/long term involving China would be China/Russia.

Originally Posted by carl

It looks to me as if Vietnam at least has chosen one. In the event, sides will have to be chosen if the party is to have any say at all in its fate.

The Vietnamese have chosen their own side, and it's certainly not our side. They'll work with us as long as and to the extent that they think it useful for them... as you'd expect.

Again, I think the idea that "sides will have to be chosen" is built around a fairly extreme level of assumption about the future.

Originally Posted by carl

Speaking of Vietnam, I wonder if they are the ones who will prove to be a catalyst. The don't seem to like China much and their history indicates that they don't much like being messed with.

A catalyst for what? I'd expect a lot of jostling there, but the Vietnamese don't want to fight the Chinese and vice versa.

Again, I see no reason whatsoever to assume that a major military confrontation between China is inevitable or even likely.

[Ray]

China Military Paper Warns of Armed Confrontation Over Seas
Published: Saturday, 21 Apr 2012 |

China's top military newspaper warned the United States on Saturday that U.S.-Philippine military exercises have fanned risks of armed confrontation over the disputed South China Sea.

The commentary in China's Liberation Army Daily falls short of a formal government statement, but marks the harshest high-level warning yet from Beijing about tensions with the Philippines over disputed seas where both countries have recently sent ships to assert their claims.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47125632

What does one make of it?

Will the US back down?

[Ray]

U.S. plans for larger presence in Pacific

The military’s top officer in the Pacific, Adm. Samuel Locklear, describes the new focus as “back to the Pacific,” alluding to long-standing U.S. military presence and partnerships with Pacific Rim nations dating back before World War II.

In practice, it means more Navy ships in the region, along with more Marines and soldiers, Locklear told an audience of service members April 12 at Yokota Air Base, Japan. “What you should expect from the future is an enduring presence in this part of the world that is properly shaped for the coming century,” said Locklear, a former Pacific Fleet commander who in March took the helm of Hawaii-based U.S. Pacific Command.

Among his top missions is “making this theater a priority for the long run,” he said. “We have a joint force that, for the Pacific, has been misshapen. So we have to reshape it for the contingencies that we have here.”...

The Navy already has put more ships and submarines in Hawaii and Guam and the first littoral combat ships in San Diego, ahead of plans to permanently deploy more of the new ships to Singapore. Mabus recently returned from a trip to the region, the latest in a series of visits designed to find new ways to insert U.S. ships and troops into places such as Australia and the Philippines.

Aside from North Korea, the increased U.S. presence is designed to counter China’s growing military and its more assertive posture toward its neighbors. Nowhere is that more evident than in the South China Sea, where there have been several flare-ups with Beijing over disputed territory, most recently with the Philippines, but also with Vietnam and other nations. Recent double-digit hikes in China’s defense spending and its development of an aircraft carrier also have fueled speculation about its intent.

http://www.navytimes.com/mobile/inde...ear-042112w%2F

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

What does one make of it?

Not much, it's talk.

Originally Posted by Ray

Will the US back down?

"Back down" in what sense? I wouldn't expect much reaction from the US. They'll continue the exercise, hold other exercises as scheduled, etc. They'll likely try to hold more exercises, as a way of rotating more troops through, and I expect more port calls in Manila and Subic, and a running US presence at some Philippine military facilities, as is already the case in the south. I don't think there will be any move toward actual bases in the conventional sense, too controversial and too politically complicated.

Similar for the rest of SE Asia... exercises, port calls, engagement to the extent those countries see fit, but I wouldn't expect to see "US bases" going in anywhere, beyond the already-announced LCS basing at a Singaporean Navy facility.

[davidbfpo]

Ray rightly asks:

Will the US back down?

It is not a matter of backing down, what should not be overlooked and one hopes that PACOM and other US activity is closely checked to prevent incidents that could provoke China, especially the PLA. For example ELINT flights along China's coastline.

[carl]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

That would depend on the event. I suspect that if the US and China ever mixed it up a lot of countries in the region will try to stay neutral and out of it to the greatest degree possible... though I think this a most unlikely eventuality. As I've said before, I think the most probable conflict scenario in the medium/long term involving China would be China/Russia.

The Vietnamese have chosen their own side, and it's certainly not our side. They'll work with us as long as and to the extent that they think it useful for them... as you'd expect.

Again, I think the idea that "sides will have to be chosen" is built around a fairly extreme level of assumption about the future.

A catalyst for what? I'd expect a lot of jostling there, but the Vietnamese don't want to fight the Chinese and vice versa.

Again, I see no reason whatsoever to assume that a major military confrontation between China is inevitable or even likely.

If the US and Red China ever mixed it up, other countries would try to stay out. If it did happen though, I don't think they could. (Which may be what you said, I wasn't sure.)

Vietnam will of course work for its own interests. It just seems to me that their interests align more closely with ours and they will act on that. Which is close enough to picking our side for me.

What I meant by Vietnam being a catalyst is my purely subjective personal view is that if all this oceanic mad-dogging were ever to degenerate into serious shooting and a ship burning, it would be because the Viets had been pushed a little too far. They seem pretty feisty.

Not inevitable, not likely in the near future. But like I never tire of saying, 10 and 15 years down the road, if the Red Chinese keep going the way they appear to me to be going, it may become much more likely.

David, we had Russian Bears flying near the UK and the US often during the Cold War. We didn't do much about it besides escort them and exchange photo opportunities. They weren't looked upon as provocations. Why can't the Red Chinese be held to the same standards?