War with China?

[djcyclone]

Here is one for everyone to chew on. Now I know this does not qualify as History, but every now and again it is healthy to talk about the hear and the now.

Every so often, I will argue with people about the constant threat that China seems to presant to the United States. So I figured I would start a thread on the possibility of a War between the United States and China. This does not pertain to a Nuclear War, because everyone knows that in a Nuclear War everyone dies and the world as we know it stops. Lets look at the possibilities of a conventional war between the two countries.

In my opinion, and the argument that I always fall back on, is that a war between the two countries would be nothing but a farce. Chinas Navy is no where near a threat to the United States Navy, and there for the chances of them getting over here in force would be slim. On the other hand, the U.S. Army would never try to land in China, because of the simple numbers. The Chinese army outnumbers us about 10 to 1. Technology does not matter with numbers like that. Any amphibiouse landing would be crushed instantly.

Some people think that we would use our Ally of Russia to invade by land, but I do not think that Russia is that good of friends with us. Others say that China already has enough people over here to cause significant problems, but I say that everyone over here came here to get away from China, so they would not take up arms against us. Just an opinon of course, but I just thought I would throw this out their to see where you guys stand on this.

Hopefully it will never happen, but one never knows.

[Smiffy]

China is large and powerful, but her power is only local. She cannot project her power beyond her immediate sphere of influence. The only reason that Britain and France are seen as major players on the world stage is that they can project power around the globe, by reason of having sufficiently large and, above all, capable navies. You can be the big kid on the block, but if it's you're stuck on the block, it doesn't impress the neighbours.

[Warship NWS]

Quick notice, please keep in mind the policies of this forum regarding any political discussions.. political history and reference points are fine but not political debates and opinions. This is just a preemptive heads up as discussions regarding China quite often involve political context.

Thanks.

[Citadelvette]

The seemingly neo-Sovietism in Russia probably rules them out. Maybe it would be possible land wise to play the Indians, who have been historically the enemy of China, against them.

[djcyclone]

The seemingly neo-Sovietism in Russia probably rules them out. Maybe it would be possible land wise to play the Indians, who have been historically the enemy of China, against them.



I agree that Russia probably would not help us. I wonder about India however. India does not like us very much either, but then again who does. I think the United Kingdom is are only true ally. Anyway it would all depend on who, and what started the war. If China attacked one of its neighbors then we would of course have alot of support, but if it was a more subtle event then I think we would have trouble getting help.

India might turn to the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." In that case they would fight along side us long enough to get China to sue for peace. That is why I say that the war would be a farce. Again, we would crush their navy, taking small damage to our own. They would not be able to get over here, and we would not be able to get over their. Their is no doubt that a war with China would hurt our economy, but I think we would recover quickly.

Even if India or Russia allowed us to land troops on their territory to fight the Chinese Army, then the question is could we push them back, or even stand our ground against such overwelming numbers? They could launch entire platoons on suicide attacks, and all we could do try and hold them back with everything we had. I think our technology is far more superior, but I do not know when we are talking about such overwelming numbers.

[JMS]

When this what if comes out, I allways ask the same, ¿fight over what? ¿Taiwan? the Taiwanese and the continentals seem happy to converge one with the other. ¿Some small islands in the South China Sea? ¿What does China want or need that will bring her into conflict with the US?

[Ed Rotondaro]

I agree that Russia probably would not help us. I wonder about India however. India does not like us very much either, but then again who does. I think the United Kingdom is are only true ally. Anyway it would all depend on who, and what started the war. If China attacked one of its neighbors then we would of course have alot of support, but if it was a more subtle event then I think we would have trouble getting help.

India might turn to the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." In that case they would fight along side us long enough to get China to sue for peace. That is why I say that the war would be a farce. Again, we would crush their navy, taking small damage to our own. They would not be able to get over here, and we would not be able to get over their. Their is no doubt that a war with China would hurt our economy, but I think we would recover quickly.

Even if India or Russia allowed us to land troops on their territory to fight the Chinese Army, then the question is could we push them back, or even stand our ground against such overwelming numbers? They could launch entire platoons on suicide attacks, and all we could do try and hold them back with everything we had. I think our technology is far more superior, but I do not know when we are talking about such overwelming numbers.

DJ:

Actually the US and India have been cultivating far better relationships since 9/11 and see the common dangers of radical Islam and a nuclear capable North Korea. It will be interesting to see how China deals with the summer Olympics which will put them under the microscope of world opinion. The Middle Kingdom has issues of its own.

[Ed Rotondaro]

When this what if comes out, I allways ask the same, ¿fight over what? ¿Taiwan? the Taiwanese and the continentals seem happy to converge one with the other. ¿Some small islands in the South China Sea? ¿What does China want or need that will bring her into conflict with the US?

JMS:

The question is would the US go to war to defend Taiwan? Both sides can exert considerable economic pressure on each other with China having the edge.

[JMS]

JMS:

The question is would the US go to war to defend Taiwan? Both sides can exert considerable economic pressure on each other with China having the edge.

And the Taiwanese may decline the offer. I think the Chinese see Taiwan as a good deal for them and reckon that over time it will be ripe for reunification, specially now that the pro-independency party has lost the ellections and discredited itself.

[Kyle Holgate]

Setting course away from politics - what would China need to take Taiwan? They must assume that the US would react unfavorably both economically and militarily - and perhaps the rest of the world (or much of it) would also. Would they then do a "Pearl Harbor" and try to smack the US carriers and/or Submarines and land bases prior to an assault? Another option I see is to just assault and have enough forces available and threaten use of "special weapons" and dare anyone to intervene. I'm sure there are more possibilities.
Their main threats of course are the US carriers and perhaps even more so the US submarines that "may" be lurking in the area at any time - ya never can tell. Land based air from Japan, South Korea and other bases also pose a huge threat. Finally Taiwan isn't going to set back and let it happen - they're not completely defenseless by any means.
SO, how do you think China would assault and invade Taiwan?

[djcyclone]

Setting course away from politics - what would China need to take Taiwan? They must assume that the US would react unfavorably both economically and militarily - and perhaps the rest of the world (or much of it) would also. Would they then do a "Pearl Harbor" and try to smack the US carriers and/or Submarines and land bases prior to an assault? Another option I see is to just assault and have enough forces available and threaten use of "special weapons" and dare anyone to intervene. I'm sure there are more possibilities.
Their main threats of course are the US carriers and perhaps even more so the US submarines that "may" be lurking in the area at any time - ya never can tell. Land based air from Japan, South Korea and other bases also pose a huge threat. Finally Taiwan isn't going to set back and let it happen - they're not completely defenseless by any means.
SO, how do you think China would assault and invade Taiwan?



Not so long ago, North Korea and China wher good pals, and that meant if we went to War with China, South Korea would dissapear within moments of the declaration. Fortunately China dislikes North Korea as much as anyone now, so South Korea may have a little bit longer to survive, but we would most likely pull out as quickly as we could to save as many lives as we could. A War with China today would probably see China and North Korea rekindle their love for eachother. This would be a problem for South Korea, and perhaps even Japan.

The biggest Naval battles of such an event would definetly be between Japan and China, and Taiwan and China. By the time our Navy got their it would be almost finished. Our Submarines do spy on China, so they would get a piece of the action. I doubt that China could pull a Pearl Harbor on us, just because we our far more agile today then we where back in WW II, and they do not have the ability to reach out and catch us with Aircraft in the same fashion. Our Carriers would have to be in theater to be in danger, and we would be on alert if they where their. The only Carrier they have is the old Soviet Carrier that was purchased, but it was turned into a Museum. From what I know it was purchased by a civilian also, but I guess the government could take it if they felt they needed it. It would be a war cassualty before it even left port though.

As for Taiwan, I think the U.S. government would try to support them, but their would always be the cry babies that would come up with anything they could to stop the war. (Cannot go political though.)

I do believe that China wants Taiwan, simply for bragging rights. It does not help them a whole lot, but they see it as something that was wrongfully taken away from them. Just like the Middle East sees Israil as not being an actual country. I do believe that some of our Naval Units have been caught over their when hostilities where about to break out. Fleet Command has a scenario about such an event, but I remember asking the Captain of my Ship and he said that a similar event had happened, where a U.S. Ship or Ships got caught between Taiwan and China during very unsettling events. Nothing happend in the long run, but we came close.

[Citadelvette]

Recently I read in Jane's that the Varyag CV was being readied for service and was expecting sea trials in December 2008.

[Kyle Holgate]

I just read an article yesterday mentioning that USS George Washington is replacing the USS Kittyhawk in Japan - the first CVN to be stationed there. If that's not a tempting target for a preemptive strike of some kind I don't know what is. China has some very accurate ballistic missiles, so even non-nukes 'could' threaten any ship in Japan as they'd take just a few minutes to get there, not much time to do anything in defense.

In my mind the biggest worry - thinking from the point of view of China - is the sub threat. Japan has very capable diesel boats, no one knows (except the USN) what American subs are lurking off Taiwan, and no one knows if the RN or others have subs there.

If I were China I and were determined to take Taiwan I think that a strategy of (I know, it's a no-no) political pressure and propaganda pressure might work. How many US citizens are really willing to back a war with China over Taiwan? To be honest I'm not sure I would (would have to think about it more actually to be sure).
China MUST know that a surprise type strike on any US ship or base is bad news. History has shown that nothing enrages the US like that sort of attack, and you don't want to piss US off. Better to try hard to avoid US causalties and play very carefully - and keep saying that "if you stay out, no one will be hurt". Could the president get enough backing in that sort of climate to muster a defense of Taiwan? I wonder.

[Kyle Holgate]

Recently I read in Jane's that the Varyag CV was being readied for service and was expecting sea trials in December 2008.

One SSN = no more Varyag, and I'm sure they know that. Until they get their ASW defenses REALLY working well surface ships will remain targets.

[john964]

When this what if comes out, I allways ask the same, ¿fight over what? ¿Taiwan? the Taiwanese and the continentals seem happy to converge one with the other. ¿Some small islands in the South China Sea? ¿What does China want or need that will bring her into conflict with the US?There are probably only three scenarios that would more than likely cause war with the PRC, and they can be predected in 2 out of three incedents by asking the question. What dose the PRC need the most? The answer; Access to resources and living space for its people. In 2 of the 3 scenarios they can get the primary one access to resources. The third is almost entirely political. The answer to the first two is invasion of Siberia and or the forceful takeover of the Spratley Islands. The third is the invasion of the ROC on the island of Taiwan. Siberia is one of the last relativly untapped storehouses of natural resources on the planet, from what I have read Siberia has oil, coal, gold, copper, silver and several of the stratigic minerals group. The Spratley Island have one of the largest untapped oil deposits on earth from what I under stand it may be bigger than half the PG. But the Spratley's are claimed by several nations including Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonisia, PRC, ROC and a multitude of others.

[djcyclone]

There are probably only three scenarios that would more than likely cause war with the PRC, and they can be predected in 2 out of three incedents by asking the question. What dose the PRC need the most? The answer; Access to resources and living space for its people. In 2 of the 3 scenarios they can get the primary one access to resources. The third is almost entirely political. The answer to the first two is invasion of Siberia and or the forceful takeover of the Spratley Islands. The third is the invasion of the ROC on the island of Taiwan. Siberia is one of the last relativly untapped storehouses of natural resources on the planet, from what I have read Siberia has oil, coal, gold, copper, silver and several of the stratigic minerals group. The Spratley Island have one of the largest untapped oil deposits on earth from what I under stand it may be bigger than half the PG. But the Spratley's are claimed by several nations including Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonisia, PRC, ROC and a multitude of others.



I think the biggest of concerns is their growing population. Many believe that over population is what caused both World Wars. I cannot say ya or na to that, but it is a possibility. I am suprised that Japan is finally alowing a CVN to dock in their harbors. From what I have always understood, they wher against any Nuclear Ships being stationed over their, for obviouse reasons. I guess we finally talked our way over their. If China did attack any of its neighbors, then I think it would definetly be war. The U.S. would be able to gain support from the U.K., and maybe even France (doubtful, but you never know, anything is possible in today's world.)

I do not think that Nuclear Weapons would ever be put on the table. I say this because the United States has 14 SSBN's to their one which is not even in service. On top of everything else, we have the new SM3 that is supposed to be able to shoot down Balistic Missile. Their is to much chance that if they shot at us we would stop their attack and then retaliate. They would not be able to stop our attack, and so if I where China I would not play the old U.S.S.R. game of make a move and dare the World to stop you. In today's world, you just might be stopped, and you will not like the consequences. I think China would most definetly do everything they could to keep it conventional. They still have the advantage in a conventional War, because of the size of their Army. In a Nuke War they do not have the advantage.

That is why they are on Sour Terms with North Korea. China is afraid of them launching their Nukes, and they do not want the trouble that will follow to be in their neck of the woods.

[Kyle Holgate]

I think the biggest of concerns is their growing population. Many believe that over population is what caused both World Wars. I cannot say ya or na to that, but it is a possibility. I am suprised that Japan is finally alowing a CVN to dock in their harbors. From what I have always understood, they wher against any Nuclear Ships being stationed over their, for obviouse reasons. I guess we finally talked our way over their. If China did attack any of its neighbors, then I think it would definetly be war. The U.S. would be able to gain support from the U.K., and maybe even France (doubtful, but you never know, anything is possible in today's world.)

I do not think that Nuclear Weapons would ever be put on the table. I say this because the United States has 14 SSBN's to their one which is not even in service. On top of everything else, we have the new SM3 that is supposed to be able to shoot down Balistic Missile. Their is to much chance that if they shot at us we would stop their attack and then retaliate. They would not be able to stop our attack, and so if I where China I would not play the old U.S.S.R. game of make a move and dare the World to stop you. In today's world, you just might be stopped, and you will not like the consequences. I think China would most definetly do everything they could to keep it conventional. They still have the advantage in a conventional War, because of the size of their Army. In a Nuke War they do not have the advantage.

That is why they are on Sour Terms with North Korea. China is afraid of them launching their Nukes, and they do not want the trouble that will follow to be in their neck of the woods.

Yeah, North Korea. Nothing like having a crazy neighbor that may do virtually anything and he's got BIG guns!
One other thing I thought of - China quietly convinces N. Korea to move on the South and then makes its own move on Taiwan. Of course N Korea may just be nutty enough to use Nukes so China would have to keep their distance politially and militarily so as not to be blamed along with NK.
One of Tom Clancy's books - Dragon and the Bear or something like that dealt with a Chinese invasion of Siberia to get the resources there. Russia couldn't stop them I'd expect without resorting to nukes. The question is always there though with any country that has the nukes - what exactly would force them to use them? As long as you really don't know the answer to that you're playing with fire any time you make war. Something not lost on Iran I expect...

[djcyclone]

Yeah, North Korea. Nothing like having a crazy neighbor that may do virtually anything and he's got BIG guns!
One other thing I thought of - China quietly convinces N. Korea to move on the South and then makes its own move on Taiwan. Of course N Korea may just be nutty enough to use Nukes so China would have to keep their distance politially and militarily so as not to be blamed along with NK.
One of Tom Clancy's books - Dragon and the Bear or something like that dealt with a Chinese invasion of Siberia to get the resources there. Russia couldn't stop them I'd expect without resorting to nukes. The question is always there though with any country that has the nukes - what exactly would force them to use them? As long as you really don't know the answer to that you're playing with fire any time you make war. Something not lost on Iran I expect...



I think in the end it all comes down to two things that would cause a country to use the nukes that they have. One would be in retaliation to a nuclear attack. Two would be to prevent the complete overthrow of the government, or to avoid being completly conquered. In today's world, I think that neither of them are likely. Most countries are not willing to make war like in the old days. Wars are only arguments that either are settled diplomaticaly, or settled by the attacking country getting what they want, or the defending country keeping what they want.

If China was to attack Siberia, then Russia would oppose them, but I doubt they would resort to Nukes even if they could not get Siberia back. They would just settle and try to put political preasure on China to withdraw. They would only use their nukes for the reasons above. Either they have already been attacked with nukes, or China declares all out war against them and does not intend to stop until they are shooting artilery rounds at the Kremlin itself.

In the event of Nuclear war, one must always weigh the out come against the gain. The truth is that their is no gain. If you shoot a nuke then the world ends, because everyone who has them shoots also. This allows countries to call other countries bluffs, because they do not believe that they will shoot. This is why I think that China, Russia, and even North Korea will not use their Nukes no matter what. The point of War is to gain something, but if a nuke is used then nothing is gained, but everyone loses.

[Kyle Holgate]

I'm not so sure that any use of nuclear weapons causes everyone to start firing them. IF for example in a theoretcial war - country A uses a nuke on a concentration of country B's army then will the country automatically go ballistic (literally) and nuke the $E#! out of country A? I admit, it's a HELL of a risk to take and if nothing else opens a small can of worms in that now the first country to use nukes has more or less said "OK" to nuking their armies back.

I agree with the situations outlined as to when a country is likely to use nukes. I would cautiously add though that tactical use of Nukes may happen too. If the country using the tactical nukes has a killing supply of strategic nukes in their back pocket it is very pointed that they did NOT use them and are saying in effect, yes we've upped the score here but we could do a LOT worse, so watch what you do in response!

So in this sort of scenario where the Chinese army is HUGE and simply swarms over the Russians - I can picture the use of tactical nukes as being 'possible' - as long as the entire Russian Boomer fleet is at sea and it's clear that their ICBM's and bombers are poised to up the stakes even further if China were to get too crazy in their response.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'm not so sure that any use of nuclear weapons causes everyone to start firing them. IF for example in a theoretcial war - country A uses a nuke on a concentration of country B's army then will the country automatically go ballistic (literally) and nuke the $E#! out of country A? I admit, it's a HELL of a risk to take and if nothing else opens a small can of worms in that now the first country to use nukes has more or less said "OK" to nuking their armies back.

I agree with the situations outlined as to when a country is likely to use nukes. I would cautiously add though that tactical use of Nukes may happen too. If the country using the tactical nukes has a killing supply of strategic nukes in their back pocket it is very pointed that they did NOT use them and are saying in effect, yes we've upped the score here but we could do a LOT worse, so watch what you do in response!

So in this sort of scenario where the Chinese army is HUGE and simply swarms over the Russians - I can picture the use of tactical nukes as being 'possible' - as long as the entire Russian Boomer fleet is at sea and it's clear that their ICBM's and bombers are poised to up the stakes even further if China were to get too crazy in their response.

Kyle:

Swarm armies are a thing of the past, especially in terrain like Siberia were Russia could trade land for position. Large armies without sophisticated support and weapons are just targets waiting to get decimated.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

Swarm armies are a thing of the past, especially in terrain like Siberia were Russia could trade land for position. Large armies without sophisticated support and weapons are just targets waiting to get decimated.

China today = swarm army WITH fairly sophstocated support and weapons. Russian technology may have an advantage but not like the west has, and that advantage if any is shrinking as China tosses out old equipment and replaces it with new. Tanks, aircraft, AA missiles, Artillery, squad level fire rifles and automatic weapons... An attack by China today is going to be a whole different ball game than it was.

The US and west constantly threatened the use of tac-nukes on the Soviets if they attacked western Europe for the same reasons - it was quite unsure if the west could stop them without nukes for a while. The Soviets had superior tanks, good aircraft in large numbers, lots of artillery - in effect the concern was that the'd swarm western Europe and couldn't be stopped. I think the same concern would be there in Siberia, except that there are very few Russians there to accidently nuke or be impacted by fall out from tac-nukes.

[djcyclone]

Kyle:

Swarm armies are a thing of the past, especially in terrain like Siberia were Russia could trade land for position. Large armies without sophisticated support and weapons are just targets waiting to get decimated.



I agree. I do believe that Russia was the inventor of Scorched Earth Tactics. Even if China does not make the same mistake as Napoleon and Hitler, and they do give their troops enough winter supplies and cloths. Can you imagine how hard it would be to pull off an invasion like that. Siberia is almost always cold, and that is why they have recources that are untapped. No one wants to freeze to death trying to dig for them. Russia would just pull back like they have in the past, and wait until the time was right to attack.

I do not know if it would be possible to provide sophisticated support to an army in terain like Siberia. Even if China pulled it off, it would be a short lived event.

[bridav58]

China today = swarm army WITH fairly sophstocated support and weapons. Russian technology may have an advantage but not like the west has, and that advantage if any is shrinking as China tosses out old equipment and replaces it with new. Tanks, aircraft, AA missiles, Artillery, squad level fire rifles and automatic weapons... An attack by China today is going to be a whole different ball game than it was.

The US and west constantly threatened the use of tac-nukes on the Soviets if they attacked western Europe for the same reasons - it was quite unsure if the west could stop them without nukes for a while. The Soviets had superior tanks, good aircraft in large numbers, lots of artillery - in effect the concern was that the'd swarm western Europe and couldn't be stopped. I think the same concern would be there in Siberia, except that there are very few Russians there to accidently nuke or be impacted by fall out from tac-nukes.


China & Russia the Chinese will have to get to the Urals to defeat the Russians . Just what is the infrastructure of Siberia? Oh just who says the Russian tanks were better then NATO's?

[djcyclone]

China & Russia the Chinese will have to get to the Urals to defeat the Russians . Just what is the infrastructure of Siberia? Oh just who says the Russian tanks were better then NATO's?



I think that Armor in Russia has always been about numbers. I would say that technology was an equal race when it came to tanks, until we developed the Abrams. The only thing that Russia had was twice the number of tanks then All of the Allied Nations of NATO put together.

[JMS]

I agree. I do believe that Russia was the inventor of Scorched Earth Tactics. Even if China does not make the same mistake as Napoleon and Hitler, and they do give their troops enough winter supplies and cloths. Can you imagine how hard it would be to pull off an invasion like that. Siberia is almost always cold, and that is why they have recources that are untapped. No one wants to freeze to death trying to dig for them. Russia would just pull back like they have in the past, and wait until the time was right to attack.

I do not know if it would be possible to provide sophisticated support to an army in terain like Siberia. Even if China pulled it off, it would be a short lived event.


I think you need to read on the second Punic war for scorched earth tactics. ;)

Anyway, I don't think the Chinese have a need to go to war with Russia over Siberia. They can pay for what they get out of Russia and the Russians are more than willing to sell. Additionally, the oil-fields are far from the Chinese border, so the effort to take them by force is quite big.

http://www.russiablog.org/2006/03/siberia_is_becoming_chinese.php
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_Russia

Now, the Chinese have been active elsewhere, most notably in Africa, in search of resources so the most likely scenario is a war-by-proxy for the seizure of additional resources, the biggest prize being the Democratic Republic of Congo, rich in both resources and turmoil.

In Asia, I don't see a NK invasion of the ROK, even with Chinese support, succeeding, and many years ago I read that the main reason the continuing US presence in Koreas was to keep the South from invading the North. Nowadays the differential between both Koreas is wider than ever and increasing and the ROKs are arming themselves to the teeth with new weapons and technology while the NKs stagnate.

I can only see China as a possible opponent but they may see that differently and may be keeping an eye on Japan, which similarly is rearming and modernising their forces. Taiwan lags a bit and has the problem that its arms purchases need a de facto permission from the PRC (ask the French), but it has enough military power to insure that a PRC landing won't succeed, specially as projection capabilities of the PRC remain limited.

Any war over the Spratlys will be easily won by China, since I don't think the US will get involved over some islets that are contested in any case.

[bridav58]

I think that Armor in Russia has always been about numbers. I would say that technology was an equal race when it came to tanks, until we developed the Abrams. The only thing that Russia had was twice the number of tanks then All of the Allied Nations of NATO put together.


NATO had about 23,000 tanks including those of France(even though France had left NATO by then but certainly if a Soviet Invasion of Germany occured she could be counted on) while the Warsaw Pact had about 30,000 . However the Soviets had to have some of those 30,000 tanks in the east covering the border with China further with turmoil going on in Iran some had to be kept along that border.

[Kyle Holgate]

China & Russia the Chinese will have to get to the Urals to defeat the Russians . Just what is the infrastructure of Siberia? Oh just who says the Russian tanks were better then NATO's?

I probably wasn't clear - I was talking 1960's & early 70's when the Soviets had what are generally considered superior armor. Today all bets are off - I'm not sure how good some of the very newest Russian tanks are, but I'd still put my money in a tank vs tank action on the M1A2, Leopard 2 and Challenger (??? the latest British battle tank)!
My point was that in the middle cold war when it looked like the Soviets couldn't be stopped there was an implied threat of the west using tac-nukes. As technology developed then sometime in the 80's I believe the western nations gained ground in technology and trumped the Soviets. With better tanks, better aircraft and a huge number of sophistocated Anti-tank rocket systems - well - read Red Storm Rising to get an idea of what would likely happen.

[Kyle Holgate]

The real question about China - are they building and modernising their armed forces with expansion in mind or are they thinking in terms of defense and backing their national will power with a punch - much like the US has done. Of course if China fields a modern and sophistocated navy with quiet submarines that can give the western nations trouble they'll be taken more seriously across the board. Face it - if you're talking with a guy that is muscled like the Hulk you're probably going to be a bit more respectful and reasonable even if they're the nicest guy in the world! Backing the will of the government with the potential of a big punch makes others take more notice and think more carefully in dealings with you.
China wants to be the next so called super-power and I think probably will be, but while I don't trust them - I don't think their aim is to conquor other countries like Germany in WW2.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The real question about China - are they building and modernising their armed forces with expansion in mind or are they thinking in terms of defense and backing their national will power with a punch - much like the US has done. Of course if China fields a modern and sophistocated navy with quiet submarines that can give the western nations trouble they'll be taken more seriously across the board. Face it - if you're talking with a guy that is muscled like the Hulk you're probably going to be a bit more respectful and reasonable even if they're the nicest guy in the world! Backing the will of the government with the potential of a big punch makes others take more notice and think more carefully in dealings with you.
China wants to be the next so called super-power and I think probably will be, but while I don't trust them - I don't think their aim is to conquor other countries like Germany in WW2.

Kyle:

I don't fancy China's chances in a naval war. Her fleet really isn't a blue water navy and she has zero operational experience as such. Also there aren't that many ports on her coast considering the size of the country. She is more of a littoral navy backed up with land based air and land based missiles. She can threaten Taiwan and Japan, but her greatest impact would be on land.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

I don't fancy China's chances in a naval war. Her fleet really isn't a blue water navy and she has zero operational experience as such. Also there aren't that many ports on her coast considering the size of the country. She is more of a littoral navy backed up with land based air and land based missiles. She can threaten Taiwan and Japan, but her greatest impact would be on land.

I totally agree. China is however working toward putting to sea a true blue water navy and with her economic might will sooner or later have to be taken seriously at sea. Even now her submarine forces are constantly improving and China is apparently putting to sea some aggressive captains for her boats. If China decides to invade Taiwan even today they can put up a good defense of the are simply with land based air and their submarines. It won't be long before they have even more capabilities such as threatening a CVN further at sea with their own CV or CVN as well as more capable submarines. The trick is to get enough of a foot-hold on Taiwan so as to be very, very hard to dislodge. If they can do that quickly and then plead that they're not looking for war - if the US wants one that's the US's business. Would the American people back such a conflict as long as China was careful not to do anything stupid like surprise attack?

[Kyle Holgate]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23589674-5012747,00.html

[JMS]

The Chinese are coming on their diesel boats!!

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Defense_Focus_C21_sub_threat_Part_2_999.html

An interesting take to discuss at NWS, how to kill a carrier with SSKs helped out with GPS and modern comms.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The Chinese are coming on their diesel boats!!

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Defense_Focus_C21_sub_threat_Part_2_999.html

An interesting take to discuss at NWS, how to kill a carrier with SSKs helped out with GPS and modern comms.

JMS:

I know that the Swedish and Dutch navies field some very cutting edge silent diesel boats, but are the Chinese boats in the same class and as difficult to detect?

[JMS]

I don't think so but then they bought a bunch of Kilos so may have learned something and cut corners, after all they have been able to replicate the Su-27 with local components.

From a quick read on Globalsecurity the Song class boats had some growing pains that were finally overcome with the type 039G1 and has gone into series production. Now they have a new class in the water, the Yuan or type 041, but they still have a way to go to catch up in AIP technology as well as propulsion, but they have cut 20 years of development in 10 and they can go shopping for most of their needs.

[Kyle Holgate]

With modern weapons and weapon systems it's difficult to tell how good or bad they are - so much is classified. Not long ago though a Chinese diesel sub surfaced close enough to a US CV that it was too close for the CV's liking. It was undetected as far as I know, though the CV group wasn't looking for subs either or in a wartime footing. Still, makes you wonder.

[BlimpCommander]

Maybe it's just a hunch, but does anyone notice the PRC's development pattern for domestic military projects? They invest a lot in developing something, only to build a small number of it and then quickly move on. For example, after finishing the J-10, they only build 100, and now are moving on to J-XX. After finishing Type 052B, they build 2, then quickly move to Type 052C, which they build 2 more, and now there are already speculations of a Type 052D. Compare that to the Arleigh Burke, in which (I think) 21 Flight I were produced over 7 years before the introduction of Flight II in which around 20-30 more are built.

I think their tactic for the time being is to save on production and go all out on R & D, in an attempt to advance faster in military technology than normal at the cost of numerical superiority.

[Kyle Holgate]

Maybe it's just a hunch, but does anyone notice the PRC's development pattern for domestic military projects? They invest a lot in developing something, only to build a small number of it and then quickly move on. For example, after finishing the J-10, they only build 100, and now are moving on to J-XX. After finishing Type 052B, they build 2, then quickly move to Type 052C, which they build 2 more, and now there are already speculations of a Type 052D. Compare that to the Arleigh Burke, in which (I think) 21 Flight I were produced over 7 years before the introduction of Flight II in which around 20-30 more are built.

I think their tactic for the time being is to save on production and go all out on R & D, in an attempt to advance faster in military technology than normal at the cost of numerical superiority.

Many things can be said about the Chinese, but they are not stupid. They know quite well that US stealth aircraft designs as well as the F-15 and F-18 can out fight their aircraft in almost any situation except perhaps if they really outnumber the US planes (or Eurofighters). They know the USN carriers are near impossible to get at, and that their striking power is incredible (even if they don't use nukes). They know Tomahawk missiles are very hard to stop and that they probably currently have no real defense against them. I could go on, but the point is that they either have counters for some of these things in mind or already built OR they're working toward countermeasures. They are learning very fast for a number of reasons and are catching up, though still probably over 10 years behind the best of the Western military technolgy. I don't think they'd really start something unless they questioned the willpower of the US OR had some ace in the hole (ultraquiet sub, very accurate Ballistic Missile, etc).

[JMS]

IMO, they build a small number of prototypes and test them for some time, adding improvements to several iterations before freezing the design for production or try to import foreign designs and learn from operating them.

[Saffron]

Sounds to me like the Chinese are trying to accelerate their technological achievements. A nation like the US, with a comfortable lead over just about everyone else, can afford to spend a lot of time designing the next generation platform knowing that most other nations are still catching up to America's current generation of platforms. Once America is satisfied with the next generation, it builds a lot of them, again knowing that there's no rush to build the third generation.

If China is serious about achieving military parity with the US, it can't afford to dilly dally with platforms that are still a generation or two behind America. I think that's why they don't build a lot of what they currently have. What would be the point? They could either sink their military budget into building a lot of platforms that are sub-par in comparison to US platforms, or spend a lot of the budget on R&D in a mad dash to catch up ... building only a small number of units from each generation to ensure that their military doesn't fall too far behind.

Hypothetically, let's say America is building 10th generation units. Also hypothetically, let's say that China is still building 3rd generation units. Instead of building hundreds of 3rd generation aircraft and dozens of 3rd generation ships, they only build a few, concentrating on researching the 4th generation. Once achieved, again only a few 4th generation units are built as they sink money into the 5th generation. America might reach the 11th generation by the time the Chinese have reached the 8th generation, but through less building and more research, the Chinese have considerably closed the technological gap while still possessing a somewhat formidable military consisting of small numbers of each previous generation.

As the technology becomes ever more sophisticated, it becomes more difficult and more expensive to develop the next generation. I think the Chinese are well aware of that, so they're doing their best to avoid re-inventing the wheel by studying what has already been produced, speeding up the development process, and thus closing the gap far more rapidly than a nation trying to break new technological ground.