Chinese expansionism

[Walsingham]

kgambit's taken the forthright I'd normally take, so I have the luxury of a more nuanced approach.

 

1a) I'm really not clear how you think that having to reorient China's entire energy infrastructure to the Northwest/West is an acceptable solution to embargo. It takes a _long time_ and a lot of skilled workers to do that sort of thing. I'm even sure there's any kind of precedent. the British North Sea oil rush might be analogous.

 

1b) Russia has an established startegy of stamping on energry supplies to achieve foreign policy aims. Much more so than the USA. Transferring the vulnerability would seem to me to be an appalling miscalculation.

 

1c) Not to mention what happens to the existing infrastructure?

 

2) China is just not food self-sufficient. You can't just spin up agriproduction when you feel like it. Look at Britain in both World Wars.

 

~

 

Ultimately, as kgambit says, the point is that China is lashing out and trying to 'secure' her vital sea corridors. But if in so doing she precipitates a crisis then she's made matters far worse. All she can achieve is a renewed sense of unity amongst her neighbours, and potentially the end of non-militarisation in Japan. This would be utterly disastrous for China.

[Walsingham]

To develop my summary point a little:

 

If China provokes a reaction from US forces then it can only end in two ways: a US dominant victory, or a US exposed as too weak.

 

If the former then China loses. If the latter then I do not think the local independent and US aligned nations will move towards China. I think they will seek mutual security. Again, this is worse for China.

 

Really, this is the kind of helter-skelter I'd expect from a national command entity that orders steel production without any equivalent demand for steel. And empty cities.

[Orogun01]

To develop my summary point a little:

 

If China provokes a reaction from US forces then it can only end in two ways: a US dominant victory, or a US exposed as too weak.

 

If the former then China loses. If the latter then I do not think the local independent and US aligned nations will move towards China. I think they will seek mutual security. Again, this is worse for China.

 

Really, this is the kind of helter-skelter I'd expect from a national command entity that orders steel production without any equivalent demand for steel. And empty cities.

There is the third and most likely option: Everyone loses. 

A war with China will likely end up at a draw where the US is unable to occupy the ground and China cannot control their airspace and sea. Which may lead to the diplomatic table soon, although if past World Wars are to be believed human stupidity will take over and try to honor the dead by piling more dead upon them. But if we had better politicians we wouldn't be at war in the first place, so I expect a cluster**** of epic proportion and they will likely bring back drafting if they want to occupy ground. Likely to turn into the rape of Naking part 2.

[obyknven]

 

There is the third and most likely option: Everyone loses. 

A war with China will likely end up at a draw where the US is unable to occupy the ground and China cannot control their airspace and sea. Which may lead to the diplomatic table soon, although if past World Wars are to be believed human stupidity will take over and try to honor the dead by piling more dead upon them. But if we had better politicians we wouldn't be at war in the first place, so I expect a cluster**** of epic proportion and they will likely bring back drafting if they want to occupy ground. Likely to turn into the rape of Naking part 2.

 

 

Why so childish war? Do you think China really begin war against US with tied hand instead of extermination of own enemy by one powerfull strike?

 

 

Dude, It's how real projecting of power in post-WW2 world look's like.

[kgambit]

 

To develop my summary point a little:

 

If China provokes a reaction from US forces then it can only end in two ways: a US dominant victory, or a US exposed as too weak.

 

If the former then China loses. If the latter then I do not think the local independent and US aligned nations will move towards China. I think they will seek mutual security. Again, this is worse for China.

 

Really, this is the kind of helter-skelter I'd expect from a national command entity that orders steel production without any equivalent demand for steel. And empty cities.

There is the third and most likely option: Everyone loses. 

A war with China will likely end up at a draw where the US is unable to occupy the ground and China cannot control their airspace and sea. Which may lead to the diplomatic table soon, although if past World Wars are to be believed human stupidity will take over and try to honor the dead by piling more dead upon them. But if we had better politicians we wouldn't be at war in the first place, so I expect a cluster**** of epic proportion and they will likely bring back drafting if they want to occupy ground. Likely to turn into the rape of Naking part 2.

 

 

If the US were able to control Chinese sea and air, ground forces would not be needed.  

 

Chicken little warnings about a nuclear exchange are ridiculous, unless you are on the sideline gleefully hoping the two sides destroy each other.  If China decides to launch a first strike, they have insufficient warheads to reach the US and destroy US counterstrike capability.   Despite some claims to the contrary (the 3000 Chinese warhead claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny based on available Chinese fissile material), China has about 90 ICBMs capable of hitting the US with a total yield of 150 megatons via DF-31A (CSS-10 Mod 2) road-mobile ICBM and DF-5A (CSS-4 Mod 2) ICBM plus JL1 and JL2 Submarine launched missiles.  With so few warheads China has zero chance of taking out US counterstrike capability.  Further, a polar trajectory would be required which would overfly Russian territory and that is likely not going to sit well.  Missile trajectories to the US which do not overfly Russia would require ranges exceeding 17000 km - well beyond Chinese capability.

 

 Even with a first strike by China, the US could counter strike with over 2000 warheads with a minimum yield of 750 megatons.  It would not be pretty for either side.  If the Chinese are able to deliver airburst strikes, a single 4 megaton DF-5A would completely destroy New York or LA. 

 

Here's one take on the outcome:

http://www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-173-196.pdf

[Walsingham]

As kgambit says, China's nuclear option is effectively nil. It certainly doesn't have sufficient capability to take out submarine based nuclear missiles. 

 

The only reason nuclear would become an issue is in the event of a ground invasion of China. And since that option is nugatory for obvious reasons, what is the point?

 

Nuclear war is not the question here. The real question is what China is sleepwalking into, and what the consequences will be for the World in real terms.

[obyknven]

If the US were able to control Chinese sea and air, ground forces would not be needed.  

 

Chicken little warnings about a nuclear exchange are ridiculous, unless you are on the sideline gleefully hoping the two sides destroy each other.  If China decides to launch a first strike, they have insufficient warheads to reach the US and destroy US counterstrike capability.   Despite some claims to the contrary (the 3000 Chinese warhead claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny based on available Chinese fissile material), China has about 90 ICBMs capable of hitting the US with a total yield of 150 megatons via DF-31A (CSS-10 Mod 2) road-mobile ICBM and DF-5A (CSS-4 Mod 2) ICBM plus JL1 and JL2 Submarine launched missiles.  With so few warheads China has zero chance of taking out US counterstrike capability.  Further, a polar trajectory would be required which would overfly Russian territory and that is likely not going to sit well.  Missile trajectories to the US which do not overfly Russia would require ranges exceeding 17000 km - well beyond Chinese capability.

 

 Even with a first strike by China, the US could counter strike with over 2000 warheads with a minimum yield of 750 megatons.  It would not be pretty for either side.  If the Chinese are able to deliver airburst strikes, a single 4 megaton DF-5A would completely destroy New York or LA. 

 

Here's one take on the outcome:

http://www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-173-196.pdf

 

 

 

Dude, it's not about who win nuclear war, it's about terrorism. Do you personally prepared be nuked for glory of Taiwan US? You (and all US people also) just become hostage's in case of war, China have possibility kill all you in any moment. It's talk about your personal safety (and about what your government can do in situation when enemy have 300 millions hostages ).

 

[Zoraptor]

 

If China decides to launch a first strike, they have insufficient warheads to reach the US and destroy US counterstrike capability.   Despite some claims to the contrary (the 3000 Chinese warhead claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny based on available Chinese fissile material), China has about 90 ICBMs capable of hitting the US with a total yield of 150 megatons via DF-31A (CSS-10 Mod 2) road-mobile ICBM and DF-5A (CSS-4 Mod 2) ICBM plus JL1 and JL2 Submarine launched missiles.  With so few warheads China has zero chance of taking out US counterstrike capability.  Further, a polar trajectory would be required which would overfly Russian territory and that is likely not going to sit well.  Missile trajectories to the US which do not overfly Russia would require ranges exceeding 17000 km - well beyond Chinese capability.

 

Not your best work.

 

So the Chinese can take out only, say, 60 US cities/ military sites with ICBMs. If that's a Chicken Little scenario then I'd hate to see a genuine sky-is-falling one since it must involve one of two things: Russia going postal or an alien invasion. Frankly, they'd also tell the Russians to go asterisk themselves, if it's come to nukes it's too far gone to worry about them since Russia cannot actually stop them, just wave their finger and quietly annex some 'stans, Belarus and Ukraine while China and the US are happily exterminating each other. Then of course there's the small matter of China having nuclear submarines. Now I know, people will just giggle at them and say that the glorious infallible US navy will sweep them from shining sea with a wiggle of a single finger and a twinkle in their glittering eye; but then the same people also cannot explain how a barely above WW2 tech diesel electric DPRK sub apparently managed to sink a modern AEGIS vessel of the ROK not only without retaliation but without any detection at all.

 

And they'd never in a million years expect to take out retaliatory capability. That involves sinking the US fleet and airforce; and if they can do that then there's no problem in the first place.

[kgambit]

 

 

So the Chinese can take out only, say, 60 US cities/ military sites with ICBMs. If that's a Chicken Little scenario then I'd hate to see a genuine sky-is-falling one since it must involve one of two things: Russia going postal or an alien invasion. Frankly, they'd also tell the Russians to go asterisk themselves, if it's come to nukes it's too far gone to worry about them since Russia cannot actually stop them, just wave their finger and quietly annex some 'stans, Belarus and Ukraine while China and the US are happily exterminating each other. Then of course there's the small matter of China having nuclear submarines. Now I know, people will just giggle at them and say that the glorious infallible US navy will sweep them from shining sea with a wiggle of a single finger and a twinkle in their glittering eye; but then the same people also cannot explain how a barely above WW2 tech diesel electric DPRK sub apparently managed to sink a modern AEGIS vessel of the ROK not only without retaliation but without any detection at all.

 

And they'd never in a million years expect to take out retaliatory capability. That involves sinking the US fleet and airforce; and if they can do that then there's no problem in the first place.

 

 

 

Sheesh, did you completely miss the point that such a nuclear exchange would not only be highly unlikely but also devastating to both sides?  Running around trying to drum up fear about a unlikely occurrence smacks of chicken little-ism.   Ooooo, don't look now but you're in range of Chinese nukes! 

 

I was simply pointing out that the Chinese nuclear threat is too small to be considered likely let alone a first strike option unless the Chinese are willing to accept a massive retaliatory strike.   In short, I am not losing sleep over it; nor am I worried that the US is planning an embargo of China.  C'mon Zo.  

 

But just for fun, don't forget to add the Japanese navy into the mix in any embargo discussion.  While they can't project air power, they represent a very formidable ASW platform.   The Japanese navy practices hard at ASW warfare and they are good at it. 

 

For clarification, the ROKS PCC-772 Cheonan [aka Cheonanham] was a 25 year old Pohang-class patrol combat corvette.  It's not an Aegis class cruiser or destroyer nor is it even close to being so.   The Aegis system is designed for protection against  ballistic missiles, so even if the Cheonan had been Aegis capable it would not have made a difference.   Sejong the Great-class destroyers and Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin class destroyers are the only ROK ships with Aegis or Aegis-comparable capability.

 

The attack is alleged to have originated from a North Korean miniature submarine of the Yono class submarine (also known as Yugo Class) which fired one or more North Korean-manufactured CHT-02D torpedos.  The exact nature of the attack is still subject to debate.  The Yono class (130 tons submerged) is significantly smaller than the Romeo class subs (1800 tons submerged) (although both are electric diesels) and is a littoral class vessel specifically designed to work in coastal waters.  As such it represents very little threat to a blue water navy.  You're really jumping the shark by drawing conclusions from a single incident with partial and erroneous information - if I can borrow a phrase, clearly not your best work. 

 

If you have sources which fully establish the source of the attack please share them. 

 

As an aside, would someone shut the door to this thread to keep the flies out?  This high pitched buzzing whining about the return of pearl harbor and Taiwan is getting annoying.    

Edited December 9, 2013 by kgambit

[Wrath of Dagon]

For clarification, the ROKS PCC-772 Cheonan [aka Cheonanham] was a 25 year old Pohang-class patrol combat corvette.  It's not an Aegis class cruiser nor is it even close to being one.   The Aegis system is designed for protection against  ballistic missiles, so even if the Cheonan had been Aegis capable it would not have made a difference.   Sejong the Great-class destroyers and Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin class destroyers are the only ROK ships with Aegis or Aegis-comparable capability.

You mean Zor doesn't know everything after all? The claim of Aegis destroyer sounded strange to me too, but unlike you I'm too lazy to look it up. Diesel submarines are very quiet btw.

[kgambit]

 

 Diesel submarines are very quiet btw.

 

I know.  But those mini-subs are specifically designed for littoral combat (brown water - coastal).  So they represent little threat to a blue water navy.  Now, move that blue water navy into the Persian Gulf for example, and those Iranian purchased Yono class subs are a real threat. 

 

For clarification, it should have read that the Cheonan is not an Aegis class cruiser or destroyer. 

The US Navy Ticonderoga class cruisers are not the only US ships that are Aegis equipped.  Arleigh Burke class destroyers are as well. 

Edited December 9, 2013 by kgambit

[Zoraptor]

Sheesh, did you completely miss the point that such a nuclear exchange would not only be highly unlikely but also devastating to both sides?  Running around trying to drum up fear about a unlikely occurrence smacks of chicken little-ism.   Ooooo, don't look now but you're in range of Chinese nukes!

 

You're talking about a food and oil embargo and you don't think you're going to get retaliation? From the Chinese Government's POV it's game over for them if they either back down in those circumstances or try to cope with them. From the Chinese people's perspective it'd be a return to the Opium Wars and Japanese Occupation style interaction with the west, whether they'd partly blame their government or not they would, at least, go for anything that would prevent that happening again.

 

Really though, it's boggling that anyone would think the Chinese would just stand back and take it as you revert their economy back to the 70s and starve them, which is what you're talking about. The US wouldn't stand for that, nor would Russia or anyone else with the power to- they're not some piddling regional power like Iran. They'll do everything and anything in their power to asterisk you up in those circumstances because you'll be actively and deliberately asterisking them up. Practically, and fortunately, there's very little chance of such an embargo ever happening but by the tenets of your scenario that would already be happening, so we're already talking unlikely scenarios.

 

For clarification, the ROKS PCC-772 Cheonan [aka Cheonanham] was a 25 year old Pohang-class patrol combat corvette.  It's not Aegis class capable nor is it even close to being so.   The Aegis system is designed for protection against  ballistic missiles, so even if the Cheonan had been Aegis capable it would not have made a difference.   Sejong the Great-class destroyers and Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin class destroyers are the only ROK ships with Aegis or Aegis-comparable capability.

Well yes, though I note you don't mention what its primary role actually was... Contextually it's pretty obvious I meant ASW since from previous (recent) posts I know perfectly well what AEGIS is used for and that it'd be useless against subs, on the other hand the 'fact'* that a specialist ASW warship was apparently sunk by a country that most people consider a joke militarily is significant to the argument. I blame acronym overload syndrome, personally.

 

*I'm unconvinced personally and it may well be another case of the enemy being utterly hopeless/ preternaturally devious plus competent depending on circumstances that is so prevalent in the cold war and propaganda, but at least publicly the US/ ROK et al are certain it was NK wot dun it.

[Orogun01]

As kgambit says, China's nuclear option is effectively nil. It certainly doesn't have sufficient capability to take out submarine based nuclear missiles. 

 

The only reason nuclear would become an issue is in the event of a ground invasion of China. And since that option is nugatory for obvious reasons, what is the point?

 

Nuclear war is not the question here. The real question is what China is sleepwalking into, and what the consequences will be for the World in real terms.

You assume that the fighting will be done by just China and the US, for the US to enact a nuclear option so close to Russia it might be the straw that breaks relations. Any type of conflict on that area might end up drawing Russia in. Which of course changes the entire theater.

 

But, I don't believe (I hope) that it won't come to nukes.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The destroyer being ASW would probably only come into play if it was expecting to be attacked.

[kgambit]

 

 

You're talking about a food and oil embargo and you don't think you're going to get retaliation?

 

 

This started as a simple discussion about whether an embargo could be effective and somehow morphed into a professor falkon scenario of "Want to play a game?  How about global thermonuclear war?"  Just remember I didn't posit the nuclear exchange idea - I simply pointed out how damaging it would be for both sides and particularly for the Chinese.  But for what it's worth, yes I think a oil / food embargo would certainly end in hostilities and likely on a global scale.

 

 

 

Well yes, though I note you don't mention what its primary role actually was... Contextually it's pretty obvious I meant ASW since from previous (recent) posts I know perfectly well what AEGIS is used for and that it'd be useless against subs, on the other hand the 'fact'* that a specialist ASW warship was apparently sunk by a country that most people consider a joke militarily is significant to the argument. I blame acronym overload syndrome, personally.

 

*I'm unconvinced personally and it may well be another case of the enemy being utterly hopeless/ preternaturally devious plus competent depending on circumstances that is so prevalent in the cold war and propaganda, but at least publicly the US/ ROK et al are certain it was NK wot dun it.

 

 

Then why mention the Aegis capability?  I sense some convenient crawfishing going on.  And while the Cheonan is an ASW warship, it hardly classifies as state of the art.   No matter.  An NK mini-sub still doesn't pose a threat to a blue water fleet.  So the sinking of the Cheonan is an unfortunate sidelight but meaningless in terms of  blue water fleet vulnerability. 

 

Fair enough.  I'm not disputing the likelihood that it was NK that did it either - just that I haven't seen definitive proof. 

 

 

 

You assume that the fighting will be done by just China and the US, for the US to enact a nuclear option so close to Russia it might be the straw that breaks relations. Any type of conflict on that area might end up drawing Russia in. Which of course changes the entire theater.

 

But, I don't believe (I hope) that it won't come to nukes.

 

 

No.  No one assumed that the fighting would be restricted to just China and the US. Only that a nuclear exchange would be between them.  If things go so bad that an embargo was required I can easily see Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the US all aligned and it could easily expand beyond that.    As I said above, an embargo is unlikely so speculating on retaliation scenarios is nothing more than a thought exercise (at least for us). 

Edited December 9, 2013 by kgambit

[BruceVC]

Even though I support the principle of nuking China back to the stone-age I don't think you guys are thinking about all the consequences

 

Where will we get all our cheap noodles and Soy sauce from if China becomes Fallout 3?

 

 

Edited December 9, 2013 by BruceVC

[Walsingham]

Also, where would we get 20% of the human race?

[BruceVC]

Also, where would we get 20% of the human race?

 

Oh yes that as well, good point Walsie ...good point

 

[Orogun01]

Also, where would we get 20% of the human race?

But think of the fun we'd have repopulating the Chinese race.

[Zoraptor]

The destroyer being ASW would probably only come into play if it was expecting to be attacked.

It was 10 km from the NK coast, a country that they're technically at war with and with which there had been multiple previous (and subsequent) incidents. If they weren't at heightened alert they should have been, and I'd have difficulty believing they weren't.

 

This started as a simple discussion about whether an embargo could be effective and somehow morphed into a professor falkon scenario of "Want to play a game?  How about global thermonuclear war?"

I wasn't talking about the effectiveness of any blockade, I worked from the premise that neither side really wanted to escalate due to the damage they'd do each other ("economic MAD") so no blockade, effective or not, was likely. But, if you have an effective blockade targeting food and oil then there really isn't much left to escalate to as you're already starving their people and destroying their economy, and have, presumably, the willingness to do so in the future as well. Under those circumstances anyone with nukes will at the least consider using them or else what is the point of having them at all?

 

Then why mention the Aegis capability?  I sense some convenient crawfishing going on.

...

 

Just replace AEGIS with ASW in the original sentence, ie "DPRK sub apparently managed to sink a modern ASW vessel of the ROK". That's all you need to do. Makes a lot more sense if I'm saying that an ASW warship being sunk by a WW2+ tech sub is significant, yes?

[HoonDing]

Just you wait when Mongolia finally awakens from its slumber.

 

[Kroney]

Just you wait when Mongolia finally awakens from its slumber.

 

 

 

Why, will we be overrun by rubbish racially-insensitive KISS tribute bands?

Edited December 9, 2013 by Kroney

[kgambit]

 

Just replace AEGIS with ASW in the original sentence, ie "DPRK sub apparently managed to sink a modern ASW vessel of the ROK". That's all you need to do. Makes a lot more sense if I'm saying that an ASW warship being sunk by a WW2+ tech sub is significant, yes?

 

 

Yes, but why not do that in the first place was my point.  Look, let's not beat this to death.  A NK mini-sub sinking a 25 year old non state of the art ASW corvette is still impressive but let's not get carried away about overstating the significance of how that plays out against a blue water navy with state of the art ASW capability.  Ok? 

 

I did some more digging and it's equally likely that the NK sub could have been a late 1990's early 2000's coastal submarine design called the Sang-O II / K-300 class, which is slightly larger (275 ton diesel electric with extended range).  That's not WW2 tech.  So again, lets not overstate the significance, ok?

[Malcador]

Definitely wouldn't be a WW2 era torpedo in any case.

[Walsingham]

I think that irrespective of the sub, doing ASW in littoral waters has always been difficult.

 

God bless Tom Clancy!