Politics and a 2025 War with China

[Mgellis]

So...I'm playing around with scenario ideas and I need help!

Assuming a war erupted between the U.S. and China, c. 2025, I'm assuming the main alliances would look like this...

Blue: US, Taiwan (which declares independence once war actually breaks out, which would serve to escalate things, of course), Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, Philippines

Red: China, North Korea, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, New Guinea, Myanmar, Pakistan, Iran, Fiji, Tonga (the latter two provide China with Pacific bases)

But what about...

1) Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore? Would they try to stay neutral? If not, would they ally with the US?

2) Vietnam? I can see Vietnam joining the U.S., but what if Russia (a longtime ally) got involved?

3) Oman? I understand Oman gets along with Iran and has some ties to China. And they might see the war as a way to weaken Saudi dominance of the region, How far would they go?

4) Kenya, Tanzania, etc.? East Africa trades with China...would they join them in a war, at least to the extent of letting them base ships, etc. out of their countries?

5) Russia? A big wild card. And if they join the fray, do countries like Belarus and Syria and Algeria come in (mostly to harass the E.U., I suppose)? And countries like Cuba and Venezuela (to harass the US)? What does India (as I understand it, India and Russia have some strong ties) do if Russia starts fighting on China's side?

6) E.U./NATO? Would they stay neutral, except to allow US forces to fly through their airspace, etc.? Or do any European countries (UK?) have strong enough ties to some nations in the region to declare war to protect them from China?

7) Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia...ferociously neutral? Wisely keeping their heads down until they see who is left to trade with?

8) Anyone else who needs to be included?

Anyway...what are your thoughts on all this?

Thanks.

[AlphaSierra]

IMHO
In conventional warfare;

In 8 Years China will not yet be in a position to challenge anyone militarily, They lack equipment, knowledge and experience.

In 8 years China will have it's hands full to make it out of the 2nd island chain or challenge even India and Japan.

By this time the promise of money to Philippine and Indonesian, Iranian and many, many others, will not have materialized, alienating China from everyone within 6000 miles of them.

So in summary, If I were China I'd stick to hacking and manipulating currency.

Russia and the rest of the world know this and would not react well to China being a bully.

It would end swiftly and not well for China in 2025.

Perhaps the year 2050 would be more appropriate.

Just a thought

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

Anyway...what are your thoughts on all this?

Whew! That's a really big coalition (on both sides). My own preference is to think smaller at first, and then build from there.

2025 is only 7 years out. It's a long time in terms of the world, but not an eternity either. Rather than building a coalition and then trying to think of a reason for them to fight, I've found it's easier to study a possible conflict and then the coalition tends to evolve naturally the more you study it. It helps a lot to just look at a map and see what nations are nearby. They'll always be the most concerned for a lot of reasons, and influence everything from overflight rights and basing, to the distance scale and types of aircraft that matter. A-10s for example, don't make a lot of sense in the South China Sea without a ton of tankers to support them. I know, it's unoriginal, but it saves work and actually (hopefully?) helps make the scenario shed some light on current events. Most wargames are contrived, but going about it this way helps make it less so.

If you insist, however...

Something involving Oman could be interesting because it's far away from both China and America, so it could potentially be stressing to both Chinese and American long ranged aviation. Both sides would have to use foreign bases in the region in order to make use of their tactical aircraft. Split loyalties among long time regional allies might make some bases unusable, or perhaps result in denied overflight rights. Oman is also on the edge of DF-26 range. Oddly, it's also within range of Saudi DF-21s, so the Chinese might see some of their own export arms shot back at them, depending on how things shake (sheikh?) out with them. Factions in Oman are supported by Iran, but other factions are not and are more aligned with the Saudis and the US. If China decided to ship arms to Iranian backed Omani factions, America and its allies would be opposed to those shipments. That'd form the context for your Command scenario. The difficulty with it, is that it'd be a "Cold War" sort of scenario, where it's hard to imagine US and Chinese forces actually coming into direct conflict. US naval and air forces might be devoted to monitoring the Chinese presence, and there might even be some sort of show of force, but I expect on both sides there'd be efforts to avoid escalation. If the US forces attacked anyone, it'd be the forces aligned with the Iranians equipped with Chinese and Iranian export arms, but it might be more likely a Saudi fight. The other thing I like about an Oman conflict, is that it is not something that either country cares super deeply about. That means the conflict is likely more limited both in terms of the size of the force in conflict, and in terms of it not being likely to quickly escalate past the nuclear threshold. Chinese support for factions in Oman probably would not be something they care so much about as territorial integrity (as they would in the case of the South China Sea or Taiwan) or the regime's unchallenged legitimacy. Similarly, I doubt America would ever have so much invested in the outcome of an Oman conflict that they wouldn't be willing to negotiate some sort of political settlement. Arriving at that might be complicated, but it'd serve to make things more constrained as well.

For the purposes of forcing the conflict, though, you might consider a direct intervention by the Chinese in Oman. Truthfully, I can't think of any reason why they'd actually do that, but for the purpose of a game, go for it. Maybe in 7 years they'll want to put a naval base there. Maybe they'll send their carrier group or other aviation (land based tactical aircraft? bombers? where? why?) to provide support to the factions aligned with them.

NATO nations really can't stay neutral if the US is actually attacked by another nation. If the US invoked Article 5, they're obligated to help.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

I also think a lot of this stuff doesn't really matter in Command unless is inspires interesting tactical problems. Remember, Command models the kill chain not geo-politics or complex logistics trails spanning the globe. While all that stuff provides context, it isn't really a scenario yet. You have to transition from the political/strategic level, to an operational level and say, "the political leaders want to do X, military forces can help accomplish that by doing A, B, and C." Then the next leap you need to make is, "Because the military forces are trying to do A, that means these guys are going to attack/defend this stuff."

In the US/China conflict in Oman, it's possible to imagine lots of scenarios:

1) US carrier strike group with or without an SSN versus the Chinese carrier group (or maybe leave out the carriers and let the SSN do it by itself!).
2) US expeditionary strike group engaging in forcible entry operations in Oman to establish a forward operating base (FOB) on land.
3) Container ships carrying arms to the Chinese backed factions, escorted by Chinese surface combatants might be attacked with by US SSNs. It's important to note, however, this scenario is probably a stretch, because most international merchant vessels fly flags of convenience and are owned by multinational corporations, so it's very hard to really justify these kinds of attacks on merchant vessels.
4) SOF insertion or pick up, to stealthily (or not) insert or recover advisers sent to assist one of the factions.
5) US Marine Corps aviation and artillery (HIMARS w/ATACMS? Saudi DF-21s?) operating out of a FOB in Oman attacking Chinese backed Omani forces infrastructure defended by Chinese SAMs (and maybe land or sea based aviation, depending on what the distances are?)
6) US defensive air and SAMs (Aegis, Patriot, THAAD) defending against Chinese aircraft and ballistic missiles attacking airbases/FOBs or ports where US ground forces are expected to debark.

That's just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure we could come up with more if we thought about it. If you stick with the Oman thing, though, consider coming up with a campaign timeline that starts well before the onset of war and starts with the forces that are initially in the region, their build up, describes how the war starts, works through the various phases of each side's plans (e.g. Phase One: Take down the IADS and the air force, Phase Two: reduce the navy to XX%) and ends with what each side considers "winning." That'll help you think through the overall logic of the conflict, and also help inspire some scenarios. If, at the current phase of the plan, the Chinese or Iranians are trying to attrite the US Marines and/or Army to a certain level, then you might want to make a scenario where USMC F-35Bs, and SAMs supported by an Aegis SAG defend a FOB with infantry barracks, artillery and HIMARs launchers from H-6 bombers, tactical aircraft, cruise missiles and DF-26 missiles.

I hope this gets your juices flowing...

[AlexinCT]

Funny you should ask about this idea, because I build a series of scenarios around this premise for my own play and to see how this would end going. But I chose 2037, with a lineup that mirrors yours pretty much in the Pacific, but goes global. I went there because of the one player I believe you left out: Russia. With Russia included as a member of the coalition with China, this then also leads to fights in the Med (where the Russians get help from nations like Syria and occupied Libya backed by Iran, Turkey, an some of the more radicalized nations in the area), Northern Atlantic (some NATO allies against Russian forces), Indian Ocean (with Oman being part of an alliance with Iran and Pakistan against the usual players in that area), the Black Sea (Turkey and Russia against NATO), and even the Baltic (Russia vs. NATO). Obviously this then allows you to create different conflicts where there lots of players (and you can play devils advocate who tries to stay out of the fight) which can make the play quite cumbersome as each scenario, or series of scenarios, can end up getting quite big. I have really tried hard to deal with the variance (Turkey not a member of NATO and others like Germany not being able to do much because of the shitty state of their military forces) that you see different conflicts in not just in each theater, but even in the same one depending on who is doing what. The largest concentration of forces would still be in the Pacific and some of the ugliest fighting would thus remain there.

[Mgellis]

Let me be a bit more specific about the scenarios (it would be a number of them with a common storyline) I'm thinking about...

A US-China war, c. 2025, maybe a few years later, might erupt due to conflicts in the South China and East China Sea. China gets tough with countries it feels are not respecting its territory. US gets tough with China. Things spiral out of control. Rather than attack China directly, however, US and its allies decides to cripple their trade/economy and force them to sue for peace. China tries to defend its sea routes. The countries mentioned above are parts of its String of Pearls, nations where China will have naval bases, etc. They might not be directly involved in the fighting, but the bases in their territory might be targeted by US/allied forces. In some cases, that might trigger retaliatory action (Iran, Pakistan, etc.)

Some countries would almost certainly side with China in this conflict. But there are some I'm wondering about...

Which countries are going to say "America is a longtime ally/we do not like what the Chinese will do to the world so we don't want them getting more powerful" and which ones will say "China has been pretty good to us in the last 10-20 years/The global balance of power is changing and America isn't that strong anymore and the right coalition might make it too hard for America to win, especially if the war drags on for months or years, and maybe the smart bet is siding with the RISING superpower." This isn't about a country suddenly sending a SAG out to attack a carrier battle group...it's about countries refusing to allow US airliners to land at their airports, closing their ports to US ships, while telling the Chinese that THEIR ships and planes are welcome, doing their best to prevent America from disrupting Chinese trade in their territorial waters, etc. If America tries to force the issue, yes, they'll defend themselves and maybe send out raids of one kind or another, and eventually they'll probably lose, but that is a drain on American forces. (And China would be telling those countries that once they force the Americans to give up, China will give them lots of aid.) Imagine if 10 different countries, even small ones, all did that at the same time. That would be a huge headache for the US if it was in the middle of a war with China.

So that's what I'm asking, I guess. When push comes to shove, who is going to side with the US and its allies, and who is going to side with China and its coalition? And how are things affected if Russia does NOT say "We will attack NATO!" but DOES decide to ally with China and help China defend its shipping because they think if they enter the war, they will certainly lose some ships and some subs, but they might make it so hard for America to win that America finally gives up. And then they win the BIG prize...proof that a Chinese-Russian coalition can force America to back down.

So...who sides with China? Oman? U.A.E.? Malaysia? Indonesia? Kenya? Ecuador? Nigeria?

Anyway, I hope that clarifies what I'm thinking about doing with these scenarios. Thanks in advance for your help.

[Dysta]

Why not "Pearl-harboring" Shanghai before China will "Pearl-harbor" US and ally positions?

I think in 2025 (and my upcoming story that happens around 2026-2029), US and her ally will widely equipped with cruise missiles (and maybe ballistic missiles after the withdrawal of INF). Most of the important centers for technology, finance and global-diplomacy will become very prosperous in Shanghai and many other shoreline cities in China.

If you see 1000-2000 land-attack missiles in any forms and trajectories coming toward Shanghai, you may say China is over, even the political muscles are mostly in Beijing, and other heavily protected areas. Hence the tactics during the Pearl Harbor attack -- if you must attack, kill the most vital targets first. As long as the first-shooting country prepared her script to answer why they massacred thousands of people along with thousands of skyscrapers demolished. I have heavy doubt China will stay the same when Shanghai is razed, same as US for New York.

Remember why Trump force China to sign INF even China has nothing do with it, because there are an insanely huge amount of SRBMs and IRBMs ready to answer US and her allies' aggression. And he is indeed worried about it.

[kevinkins]

I think most, if not all, of the nations in the initial post would stay clear of any conflict involving the US and China in 2025. That does not mean you can't have a few interesting ones on each side. Interesting meaning you come up with cool reason for them to enter the conflict. Check the web for info on China's String of Pearls strategy. Some of the locations you listed are part of that idea. Djibouti might offer and area for fighting away from the main Taiwan theater. So might the area around Diego Garcia and Sri Lanka. Vietnam would be a interesting ally of the US given past history. A lot depends on what and where sparks the war. If it's just over Taiwan that leads you down one path. If it's the South China Sea - then another.

Kevin

[temkc5]

At a push Filipino government sides with China but this being very unpopular with the population there should be a chance that some Navy captain's would defect

[HalfLifeExpert]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

So...I'm playing around with scenario ideas and I need help!

Assuming a war erupted between the U.S. and China, c. 2025, I'm assuming the main alliances would look like this...

Blue: US, Taiwan (which declares independence once war actually breaks out, which would serve to escalate things, of course), Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, Philippines

Red: China, North Korea, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, New Guinea, Myanmar, Pakistan, Iran, Fiji, Tonga (the latter two provide China with Pacific bases)

But what about...

1) Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore? Would they try to stay neutral? If not, would they ally with the US?

Of those 4, I think Malaysia would be the most likely to join the war on the US Side, due to it's SCS claims. Singapore could also be forced to join if two successive things happen: A) Singapore allows use of port facilities by the Allies and B) China decides to strike those facilities.

2) Vietnam? I can see Vietnam joining the U.S., but what if Russia (a longtime ally) got involved?

I due to the Chinese threat, I think Hanoi would consider that the bigger concern over relations with Russia. Given Russia's geographic limitations in such a war, it would benefit Vietnam much more to join with the US than stick with Russia.

3) Oman? I understand Oman gets along with Iran and has some ties to China. And they might see the war as a way to weaken Saudi dominance of the region, How far would they go?

4) Kenya, Tanzania, etc.? East Africa trades with China...would they join them in a war, at least to the extent of letting them base ships, etc. out of their countries?

I really don't know enough so I won't comment.

5) Russia? A big wild card. And if they join the fray, do countries like Belarus and Syria and Algeria come in (mostly to harass the E.U., I suppose)? And countries like Cuba and Venezuela (to harass the US)? What does India (as I understand it, India and Russia have some strong ties) do if Russia starts fighting on China's side?

I think Russia will likely stay neutral. But if not, a Sino-American war would offer them a convenient distraction to go after some targets in Eastern Europe. Venezuela could still be too much of a mess to do much of anything. Cuba could provide some support, but it would be wise for Havana to be neutral, as it would be virtually impossible in a war for Russia or China to get real support for them. As for India, I'd think that it would be the same as with Vietnam: China threat is more dominant than keeping relations with Moscow.

6) E.U./NATO? Would they stay neutral, except to allow US forces to fly through their airspace, etc.? Or do any European countries (UK?) have strong enough ties to some nations in the region to declare war to protect them from China?

EU isn't a military alliance per se, so any consideration would really be NATO. I can definitely see the UK supporting the US side. As for NATO, even if the US is attacked first, the North Atlantic Treaty doesn't cover attacks in East Asia. Article Six of the treaty states:

Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

[Hongjian]

I wouldnt expect any big war to happen. The new cold war will simmer on, the world economy might be divided in two parts, with total disengagement between China and the Western block (while China still trades with Russia, Iran, middle east and certain Silk Road countries).

Taiwan might be a flashpoint, but seeing how the recent referendum worked in favor to China (the pro-Independence Party has lost and its leader has resigned as party chief), it seems like most Taiwanese arent interested in sacrificing their peaceful lifes and economic opportunities with the mainland by declaring independence and merely gaining some emotional satisfaction out of it. And that, even though the US seemed to have encouraged them to do so by sailing warships right inside the Taiwan strait just on the day of the referendum...
I would say that there is little chance of escalation here in the medium term, as Taiwan itself would want to prevent any escalation by allowing US troops to be stationed on their soil, which would be China's absolute bottom line. Any other action, China likely wont move a finger despite its rhetorics.

Same with the SCS, where the ASEAN countries do not show any interest in forming an united front with the US to confront China, both due to significant trade with China and also by acknowledging their vulnerability to Chinese military capabilities (they realize that even if the US was there to proect them, it is still their people who would die first in the end - which just isnt worth it).

If there was any chance of Sino-US hostile engagement, it would be a proxy war in one of the OBOR nations. Maybe a western supported coup that overthrows a pro-Chinese government, who denies Beijing any chance of negotiation (like in Sri Lanka's case, where the formerly anti-chinese government returned back into China's fold after renegotiation). It could maybe end with China intervening in a civil war, supporting loyalists of the old regime against those of the new one - much like Russia's invovlement in Syria. For that realistically to happen, it should be a country that is very close to China and vital to China's economic survival, as Beijing wouldnt send any troops into far away places and would rather choose to sit out the problems and wait until the new regime ends up breaking down on financial problems and has to crawl back to China again, as it has already happened multiple times in the recent years.

People need to realize that, despite all that talk about "China Dream" and "Rejuvenation of the Nation", Chinese foreign policy is still very careful and non-confrontational. Sure, building those artificial island might be seen as a brazen move, but in the end, they were constructed either on rocks already occupied by Chinese troops since the 70s or werent controled at all. That entire island-building business wasnt faced with any physical resistance at all. This exactly is China's prefered Modus Operanti: When there's a physical pushback, China will usually retreat and instead move on to fill other geopolitical voids.
So, we are not likely to see any Crimea-stlyed moves or even Syria-styled interventions in the long run. China isnt Russia and the mentality of its government is totally different (warrior-people vs. confucian merchants). This may make it very boring.

[ExNusquam]

NATO nations really can't stay neutral if the US is actually attacked by another nation. If the US invoked Article 5, they're obligated to help.

Article 5 only applies to attacks in North America and Europe. It’s why the Falkland War didn’t trigger Article 5, for example. I can’t imagine a realistic scenario where Chinese aggression results in Article 5 being declared. I similarly can’t imagine a realistic scenario where the US engages in full-scale conflict with China and doesn’t have the support of at least some NATO members (CAN, GBR definitely, FRA possible).

As SeaQueen explained very well, conflicts are not fought in a vacuum. The actions taken during a conflict are similarly not taken in a vacuum and will be tied to a specific operational/strategic goal. The question should be: how does country X benefit from this action? What norms are being set/broken by the action? Is there an off-ramp to the conflict that is potentially beneficial? I tend to think when it comes to great-power competition defensive realism is a very consistent model, accounting for information asymmetry and risk-aversion.

To that end, I think in a hypothetical conflict, it would not be difficult for most countries to remain somewhat neutral when it comes to free-flow of commerce. Unless their neutrality represented a threat to China (greater than that posed by US forces), how would China force compliance? Why would a country be willing to risk it’s relations with the US, which even if it lost the conflict would be the second-largest economy? If China has the economic might to encourage countries to sever ties to the US, how did the US think that a strategy of economic warfare was going to work in the first place?
When it comes to the specific Oman question – I think you would be hard-pressed to see a scenario where the current government deviate from it’s practice of almost aggressive neutrality. Oman plays both sides to keep some semblance of stability in the region. There’s a reason they were the go-between at the start of the JCPOA negotiations. They benefit hugely from free-trade through the SOH; I doubt they would be willing to jeopardize that by allowing their country to be used as a base for anti-US Chinese power.

If you run with the scenario that the Chinese are backing a pro-Iranian faction, I think you see the scenario break down along the lines you in the current Saudi-Iran proxy war. The GCC would likely all side with Saudi Arabia (except for Qatar). Pakistan has counter-Iran interests (and has contributed troops to Yemen), but also sees China as a useful ally against India. Do they choose sides or proclaim neutrality? How overt is the Chinese support for the factions in Oman? It might be possible for even a major kinetic action to get swept under the rug if there’s no benefit to escalation (see Russian PMCs in Syria).

As SeaQueen mentioned phasing, try and consider where a scenario sits in the overall campaign. The US tends to follow a standardized phasing model, with various actions taken at each phase. You can get some inspiration here for what those actions look like here. A key take-away is that in addition to the core OPLAN COA there are usually regional and global actions taken to influence the conflict (and some of these might be actions taken by State, etc.).

[SeaQueen]

When it comes to the specific Oman question – I think you would be hard-pressed to see a scenario where the current government deviate from it’s practice of almost aggressive neutrality. Oman plays both sides to keep some semblance of stability in the region.

Right, so something dramatic has to happen in order for them to not be so studiously neutral. This road to war needs a McGuffin!

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

When it comes to the specific Oman question – I think you would be hard-pressed to see a scenario where the current government deviate from it’s practice of almost aggressive neutrality. Oman plays both sides to keep some semblance of stability in the region.

Right, so something dramatic has to happen in order for them to not be so studiously neutral. This road to war needs a McGuffin!

Let's step up the game, I think someone like MacArthur will be more appropriate. The limited nuclear option and the revitalization of B61 tactical nukes for F-35 will escalate from macho/racial-driven madness into armageddon. Like I said, someone really want to see the world burn, but too aftaid to play a full-blown MAD games. So I think both superpowers will exchange limited amounts of nukes like the beginning of trade war.

For someone who don't know LNW:
https://taskandpurpose.com/small-nuclear-war/

[ARCNA442]

I think that most nations would likely initially declare neutrality and not join either side. Unlike the World Wars, few nations are interested in glory or expansion, and a US-China fight would be primarily maritime and have little risk of invasion. Further, most of the nations you list would be little more than speed bumps to the US or China - just what is Sri Lanka or Fiji going to get out of joining the fight? Even if their side wins they are almost certain to have all their critical infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. It would be much smarter to be neutral and treat both sides fairly. Even larger nations like Japan and Australia might decide it is worth supporting their favored side but still be unwilling to commit actual forces to a fight that is thousands of miles from their territory. If one side gains the obvious upper hand then they might bandwagon on, but even that has its risks if the tides of war suddenly change.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: ARCNA442

I think that most nations would likely initially declare neutrality and not join either side.

Touché.

If any bystanding countried participates, I doubt they will happy to see their cities get bombarded for revenge, like the response against the use of chemical weapons in Syria that she had not much left to destroy with.

[kevinkins]

Good discussion as it goes to the heart of what a relatively large Command scenario might look like over the next few years. Large could mean a large OOB but only involving a few key combatants. Reading the news, it seems the US may get some help with ASW from Japan et. al. for example. Certainly some countries might clandestinely help either China or the US, but we can't really model that part other than through the backstory of the scenario.

Kevin

[SeaQueen]

Certainly some countries might clandestinely help either China or the US, but we can't really model that part other than through the backstory of the scenario.

It really depends on what you mean by "help." Nations might provide tacit support in many forms. Intelligence sharing might be as simple in Command as making something auto-detectable, or by adding a nation's satellites to a side. It might take the form of SOF support, basing rights and overflight rights. Many nation's special operations forces are represented in the database, and they can do things like lase or spot targets. Adding bases is straightforward. Adding or taking away a "No-Nav" zone is easy.

[Cik]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

When it comes to the specific Oman question – I think you would be hard-pressed to see a scenario where the current government deviate from it’s practice of almost aggressive neutrality. Oman plays both sides to keep some semblance of stability in the region.

Right, so something dramatic has to happen in order for them to not be so studiously neutral. This road to war needs a McGuffin!

franz ferdinand rides again?

[altipueri]

Better start making those scenarios after Xi made recent comments.

The dragon is swishing its tail.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... nst-taiwan

[SeaQueen]

Yeah... the President of China does that every year. It's in the job description..