Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 1/31/2018 1:58:47 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1351
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
Let's play fantasy for a second.

Let's suppose that no blood is ever shed, and China install (to its fullest extent) all of the military units on each of the atolls. This would include air, SSMs, gun batteries and SAMs.

The next thing that I can see is a complete restriction of un-taxed shipping in the area, and a restriction of all outside military vessels coming within the territorial waters of Chinese land. I can see them even trying to extend the limits.

Vietnam would be very restricted, and since no one wants a blood bath, the waterways either become a cash cow for China because all vessels have pay a tax or tariff to enter, or there are shots fired. Since it's a "home game" for the Chinese, any American CVG trying to enter would face the full brunt of the Chinese enforcing their newly established boundaries.

At some point, someone either stands up to China, or they don't. Only time will tell.

Doug

(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 61
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/1/2018 2:21:58 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1167
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

The next thing that I can see is a complete restriction of un-taxed shipping in the area, and a restriction of all outside military vessels coming within the territorial waters of Chinese land. I can see them even trying to extend the limits.


The Chinese government can demand all the taxes they want from shipping companies, but if they're unwilling to back that up with the use of force (violence) then the shipping companies can just ignore the bill.

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 62
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/1/2018 9:11:42 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1351
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
I agree, so what makes you think that they wouldn't use military vessels?

They could easily intercept any vessel in the area (similar) to Coast Guard units, and essentially "hold" the ships for ransom until the required tariff is paid. If this tariff is somewhat reasonable, and the companies "need" to do business in the area, then the tariff is a great way to supplement China's war effort, without having to fire a shot. The aggrieved nations would likely pay the tariff (protection money) to continue to do business in the area, and because they don't have the militaristic means of going toe-to-toe with China.

Additionally, the fact that the US will not choose to use weapons, thereby resorting to more "diplomacy" to avoid a fight, means that China once again looks superior, while the US again looks weak. The US can publicly "claim" that "diplomacy" once again avoided war but, in the end, China got exactly what they wanted again, looking superior, didn't need to fight, and managed to thumb their proverbial noses at the rest of the "diplomatic" world because they were once again the biggest bully on the block.

Just some thoughts....

Doug

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 63
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/2/2018 2:12:44 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1167
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese
I agree, so what makes you think that they wouldn't use military vessels?


They'd be risking US intervention.

quote:


They could easily intercept any vessel in the area (similar) to Coast Guard units, and essentially "hold" the ships for ransom until the required tariff is paid. If this tariff is somewhat reasonable, and the companies "need" to do business in the area, then the tariff is a great way to supplement China's war effort, without having to fire a shot. The aggrieved nations would likely pay the tariff (protection money) to continue to do business in the area, and because they don't have the militaristic means of going toe-to-toe with China.


At some point that'd wear thin. It'd probably result in sanctions that would cost them more than they'd make. The Chinese aren't stupid. The primary interest of the whole globe in the end, is to avoid trade disruptions. Pulling this kind of stuff, which is completely not allowed in UNCLOS, would be a great way to really undermine Chinese interests all over the world. You'd see bank accounts frozen, property confiscated, embassies closed, a ton of things. All that would seriously harm Chinese business interests. If they're going to hurt the bottom line for global trade, they'll almost certainly see the globe act to hurt their bottom line in turn. It would hurt China a lot.

quote:

Additionally, the fact that the US will not choose to use weapons, thereby resorting to more "diplomacy" to avoid a fight, means that China once again looks superior, while the US again looks weak. The US can publicly "claim" that "diplomacy" once again avoided war but, in the end, China got exactly what they wanted again, looking superior, didn't need to fight, and managed to thumb their proverbial noses at the rest of the "diplomatic" world because they were once again the biggest bully on the block.


I think your thoughts speak to a lack of appreciation for soft power. Ultimately, it takes both, and policy is best enforced when the military and diplomatic arms of government coordinate. I think in this case, they seem to be working well. It's an adversarial process, and it has it's ups and downs, but I think it's a mistake to think that China will thumb their nose at the world like some pariah states that have been cranked down on so hard that there's not a lot left you can do to them short of some kind of military action. They're not that, in fact, they're less that than ever before. China is a economically developing nation with complex and interwoven set of interests. The more intertwined with the global economy they become, the greater the potential cost is for jerking other countries around. The result is a much less bellicose foreign policy. Why be belligerent when there's more money to be made than there is to be gained through belligerence?

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 64
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/2/2018 9:41:07 PM   
TyeeBanzai


Posts: 23
Joined: 1/19/2018
Status: offline
I think the SCS is going to stay open regardless of who controls it until something else happens. Let's say in 2021, the new US president talks about China's human rights during his visit to the country. China could start to tax/tariff US shipping through the area in retaliation. Or, they could restrict Indian shipping in another border dispute situation. But otherwise, if other nations are nice to China and follow her bidding, it will stay open. I don't think they will start restricting things right after solidifying their position.

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 65
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/2/2018 11:44:11 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1351
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
Now, I guess that we have reached the point where I disagree with you.

China could make a fortune by forcing ALL entrants coming into the SCS pay a tariff to conduct business with any other country, just by passing through these waters.

You say that the deterrent is the US, but I don't buy that any more, and I don't think that China is afraid, either. If they were afraid, then they never would have attempted to seize these atolls from the nations that rightfully owned them, and that would have stood down if challenged by the US. Instead, the US, using diplomacy, did nothing, and it's now too late.

In my opinion, China will soon have complete control of their objective, the Nine Dash Line, and then they will be in position to do all of the things that I said.

The standing line is that the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists, but that simply isn't true. The Obama Administration literally gave money to Iran to keep them from building nuclear weapons. That's not diplomacy. That's idiocy. All Iran did was accept the money and continue to build their weapons.

So, if the US is too afraid to even effectively deal with Iran, then they are way too scared to go against China in the SCS. The Chinese know it, too. So, each day China gets stronger in the area, while the US gets weaker.

Again, this is just my opinion which happens to differ from yours.

Doug

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 66
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/3/2018 12:31:34 AM   
TyeeBanzai


Posts: 23
Joined: 1/19/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

Now, I guess that we have reached the point where I disagree with you.

China could make a fortune by forcing ALL entrants coming into the SCS pay a tariff to conduct business with any other country, just by passing through these waters.

You say that the deterrent is the US, but I don't buy that any more, and I don't think that China is afraid, either. If they were afraid, then they never would have attempted to seize these atolls from the nations that rightfully owned them, and that would have stood down if challenged by the US. Instead, the US, using diplomacy, did nothing, and it's now too late.

In my opinion, China will soon have complete control of their objective, the Nine Dash Line, and then they will be in position to do all of the things that I said.

The standing line is that the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists, but that simply isn't true. The Obama Administration literally gave money to Iran to keep them from building nuclear weapons. That's not diplomacy. That's idiocy. All Iran did was accept the money and continue to build their weapons.

So, if the US is too afraid to even effectively deal with Iran, then they are way too scared to go against China in the SCS. The Chinese know it, too. So, each day China gets stronger in the area, while the US gets weaker.

Again, this is just my opinion which happens to differ from yours.

Doug


You make an interesting point on how the US has been being passive in recent years with regards to certain threats. If China did start imposing tariffs/taxes on ships passing through the SCS, they may just protest in the UN with nothing more happening.

Although, while China would be able to start charging ships to pass through the SCS, and the US probably wouldn't respond aggressively, and they would make lots of money, they still would lose in terms of soft power.

Sure, it is a vital waterway and nations around the SCS would be forced to accept the tariff/tax on passage, but nations would certainly still protest, and although they wouldn't be able to do anything about the SCS directly, they do things like put sanctions on China and withdraw their investments there.

If I were in Beijing, I would fortify the SCS and keep it open until it can be used as a bargaining chip. China would be seen as a responsible world power if it decided to keep the sea lanes open, and nations might even accept China's claim so long as their shipping can pass through for free. Then, if a crisis occurs between the US and the PRC, European and Asian nations could be forced to support China, or else face a closure of the SCS to shipping. Especially when money seems to drive foreign policy rather than things like democratic values nowadays, nations might be inclined to side with China rather than the US, especially when the PRC has an enormous military advantage in the SCS over the US (in our hypothetical scenario). And, maybe a decade or so after nations "get used to" the SCS being under Chinese control, then I could start charging for passage, but to do it right off the bat seems too aggressive.

Of course, this is all speculation, but I think the Chinese, at least for now, are forgoing money making in order to build soft power. That is my opinion.

There is much more money to be made when having a positive world image as opposed to putting a tariff on passage through the SCS, right now. But when the time is right, I agree they may start to do that.

< Message edited by TyeeBanzai -- 2/3/2018 12:33:03 AM >

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 67
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/3/2018 12:20:29 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1351
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
I agree with you, agreeing with me. <g>

I don't think that China will do anything until they have everything in place. But, they are moving in that direction.

My biggest point is that China is not afraid of the US any longer, at least not when operating in the SCS. They are bolstered by land-based a/c, and they know that they have "forced their will" on many areas within the region, and have not really faced anything more than a court decision denouncing their actions. If no nation can, or will, do anything about that, then why bother complying with anything. It would only become necessary if sanctions that actually hurt China existed, and then I can see a potential for conflict.

China doesn't always do things to actually accomplish a specific goal or objective. China often does something as a simple "display of strength." If they think that they can get by with something, and make the US appear weak at the same time, then they will do it, even if it doesn't make perfect sense.

The Chinese think very differently from the West. Their intentions aren't easily understood by outside cultures. The West tends to view China from a Western-view of "what would we do" in situations like this, mentality. China doesn't think like that, so it's difficult for the West to understand.

Make no mistake, when China has the fortifications in place, and the resources (their aircraft carriers) fully operational, they will impose a tariff on all ships passing through the area. It's only a matter of time. Not only do they gain financially, but they gain by being recognized as a nation that can stand up to the US, defying its power, thereby making China appear much stronger. It's as much about appearance as it is about actual strength.

This won't happen for a few years still, but it will happen. Each day, China gets stronger in the region, as the others (and the US) gets weaker.

Doug

(in reply to TyeeBanzai)
Post #: 68
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/4/2018 4:26:45 AM   
ExNusquam

 

Posts: 499
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
All that would seriously harm Chinese business interests. If they're going to hurt the bottom line for global trade, they'll almost certainly see the globe act to hurt their bottom line in turn. It would hurt China a lot.

I think you're understating this point a bit - economic problems tend to have very disruptive effects on the regime in power (See US in 1894/1930, USSR in the late 80's, Argentina in the early 80's, etc.). If an economic crisis impacts the ability of a government to deliver services to/defend the populace, the government loses legitimacy. Even with its robust internal security apparatus, this presents an existential threat to the current regime in Beijing (but probably not to China overall). Attempting to generate nationalist (or anti-imperialist) attitudes could probably delay a problem but are not sustainable in the long run, since they will often drawn a country into conflict into it's neighbors (DPRK is the exception).


quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese
China doesn't always do things to actually accomplish a specific goal or objective. China often does something as a simple "display of strength." If they think that they can get by with something, and make the US appear weak at the same time, then they will do it, even if it doesn't make perfect sense.

It's entirely possible to have "display resolve with respect to X" as an objective, which means you're somewhat refuting your own point.

I think the PRC has been remarkably consistent in its objectives 1)Sustain the CCP 2)Maintain access to resources and markets to support continued economic growth (which supports the first objective) 3)Assert sovereignty within a historic area of influence (which supports the first two objectives).

quote:

Make no mistake, when China has the fortifications in place, and the resources (their aircraft carriers) fully operational, they will impose a tariff on all ships passing through the area. It's only a matter of time. Not only do they gain financially, but they gain by being recognized as a nation that can stand up to the US, defying its power, thereby making China appear much stronger. It's as much about appearance as it is about actual strength.

To start, there's almost no financial incentive for most companies to pay any kind of transit fee. Staying outside the 9-dash line adds about half a day to a transit through the SCS...revenue generation from a tariff would likely be minimal. The biggest impact would be on vessels transiting to Vietnam. Mineral extraction and fisheries are likely more valuable in the long-run.

Further, as SeaQueen stated...this is almost impossible to enforce. Ships would just turn their AIS off, and even China does not have the naval assets to actually detain every ship that would avoid paying. If the PLAN/CCG attempted to board a US-flagged ship they'd be risking escalation, with the worst case being high-order conflict with a peer adversary.

If the PRC does manage to stand up to the US, what does it gain for the risk? Most countries are more than willing to deal with the PRC on a range of economic and military issues. You're left with a high-risk action with little reward.

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 69
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/4/2018 8:56:35 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1892
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
I'd hate myself to barge in in a middle of filibustering, but mind if I have to play with kevinkin's imagination a little bit?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-military/five-chinese-ships-in-bering-sea-as-obama-visits-alaska-idUSKCN0R22DN20150902

SCS is not an entire world of China, I mean, as ExNusquam stated: to maintain stability long enough until the alternatives are found. For example, the Bering Strait passings.

It's even closer to the American doorstep than all the neighbors around China (except Taiwan), but it has another superpower stands in between, and that is Russia.

Especially like I said before, BELT AND ROAD INITIATIVE is aim to circumvent maritime encirclement because China knew it is a very dangerous game to escalate:

https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/what-does-china-s-arctic-policy-actually-say
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/declaring-itself-a-near-arctic-state-china-to-drive-a-polar-silk-road-off-canadas-north

Guess who are the next victim in Chinese shenanigan? Canada and EU!

Right now China is not only addressed herself as "Oceanic state" (because of the long history of sea travel despite of several inferiorities in modern era), but also "near-Arctic state". Many icebreakers from Russia and China are about to put this into reality, both economically and militarily. If the world is round, then solutions are just as the same:




< Message edited by Dysta -- 2/4/2018 9:07:31 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 70
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/4/2018 2:10:03 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1351
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
When you say that I am "refuting my own point", you are actually just parsing my words.

I have been speaking in terms of generalities taking place over a period of time. They should not be expected to be an absolute expectation of occurrence.

That being said, I still believe that China has "essentially" (apparently I have to use words like this so that they aren't taken as absolutes) taken over the SCS with regard to having a military dominance, if it wants to do so. The military build-ups on these atolls have only strengthened their position.

In a short period of time (again, not specific), they "could" impose tariffs on nations intending to do business with them, or any other nation, that must transit through the SCS. This "could" be used as a source of income. In fact, under the proper circumstances, I could even see the US paying these tariffs if they thought that by refraining to do so would only hurt their own economy. These tariffs actually play right into the hands of "diplomacy", similar to the US's approach toward thwarting the nuclear effort in Iran.

Finally, you (and others) keep talking about how China doesn't want to risk a military conflict with the US. In the past, I would agree with you. But, I don't believe that now. Had the previous administration stopped the Chinese expansion when they had the chance over the last decade, then things might be different. But that never happened. So, while the US used diplomacy to accomplish nothing more than to refrain from fighting, China seized control of its objective. Make no mistake, the SCS now "essentially" belongs to China, and no nation is prepared to do anything (other than "talk" to be able to stop them. This situation is over.

Again, these are my opinions. They are obviously not in agreement with your views, but that's okay with me. It may be years before any of this actually plays out, and if you were correct, by the time that you remind me of that fact that I was wrong, I will have probably forgotten about this conversation anyway. <g>

Doug

(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 71
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/4/2018 8:59:23 PM   
TyeeBanzai


Posts: 23
Joined: 1/19/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

In a short period of time (again, not specific), they "could" impose tariffs on nations intending to do business with them, or any other nation, that must transit through the SCS. This "could" be used as a source of income. In fact, under the proper circumstances, I could even see the US paying these tariffs if they thought that by refraining to do so would only hurt their own economy. These tariffs actually play right into the hands of "diplomacy", similar to the US's approach toward thwarting the nuclear effort in Iran.



I personally think this day will come in the early 2030s. China needs only a few more things- field the DF-41 en mass, field their J-20s as they wish (and possibly their J-31s), complete their carriers, complete the Type 096 SSBN fleet, and complete the H-20 and have it replace the H-6s. As they do this, they also perfect their asymmetric warfare capabilities, and their economy grows.

If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula however, it will be interesting to see if things change, in America's favor or China's.

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 72
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/4/2018 9:33:06 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 4554
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Only a few things...OK.

(in reply to TyeeBanzai)
Post #: 73
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/5/2018 12:04:38 AM   
Hongjian

 

Posts: 805
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TyeeBanzai


quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

In a short period of time (again, not specific), they "could" impose tariffs on nations intending to do business with them, or any other nation, that must transit through the SCS. This "could" be used as a source of income. In fact, under the proper circumstances, I could even see the US paying these tariffs if they thought that by refraining to do so would only hurt their own economy. These tariffs actually play right into the hands of "diplomacy", similar to the US's approach toward thwarting the nuclear effort in Iran.



I personally think this day will come in the early 2030s. China needs only a few more things- field the DF-41 en mass, field their J-20s as they wish (and possibly their J-31s), complete their carriers, complete the Type 096 SSBN fleet, and complete the H-20 and have it replace the H-6s. As they do this, they also perfect their asymmetric warfare capabilities, and their economy grows.

If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula however, it will be interesting to see if things change, in America's favor or China's.



There are more advanced things in storage which would already raise the fire-power and capability of China's armed forces considerably in a Sino-American War scenario. I'm not talking the Railgun and DEW development here, but more 'conventional' weapons, such as stealth AShMs (already known as "YJ-20") and long range hypersonic missiles like the DF-17. These things, in addition to more space-based assets of reconnaissance and communications will considerably enhance the PLA's capabilities at a relatively low price and fast pace, as compared to deploying large numbers of J-20s and H-20 stealth bombers, both of which are still waiting for their target engines (H-20 less so than the J-20).

But the best indication that China actually doesnt want to wage war against the US is the fact that the Minimum Deterrence doctrine for the nuclear forces have not been abolished to this day. China will grow their arsenal a little bit by modernizing/replacing old systems, but they are unlikely to pursue MAD, which would be a requirement for a conventional war against the US, deterring them from using nuclear weapons in response to losses suffered from Chinese conventional strikes.

Hence China wanting to choke off other Asian nation's shipping through the SCS is a totally idiotic idea. China's militarization of the SCS and the artificial islands were more of a overreaction to the feeble Vietnamese reclamation efforts that preceded them, fearing that Vietnam would begin with a Salami-slicing action to take hold of more islets and reefs in the area, which prompted China's own Salami-slicing response. Which were, of course, pretty big slices designed to cower the adversaries. Despite this, we still need to realize that Vietnam holds the majority of the reefs and islets in the SCS, including those who are naturally best suited for island bases. And the Vietnamese, nor the Chinese, have ever attempted to stop commercial shipping in the area since decades, so why the panic?

(in reply to TyeeBanzai)
Post #: 74
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/5/2018 12:45:04 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1892
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Only a few things...OK.

I should have say the same.

I thought this topic is a perfect opportunity to discuss the current and near-future buildup of Liaoning and a new carrier, specifically for CMANO players. But well, SCS happens.

_____________________________


(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 75
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/5/2018 4:44:02 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1167
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta
I thought this topic is a perfect opportunity to discuss the current and near-future buildup of Liaoning and a new carrier, specifically for CMANO players. But well, SCS happens.


I think the point originally (and why the topic got side tracked) was that you can't consider the carrier and associated platforms in isolation. To really assess their "impressiveness," you have to consider them as pieces of a larger system intended to deter foreign intervention over an extended period of time.

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 76
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/6/2018 12:16:30 AM   
TyeeBanzai


Posts: 23
Joined: 1/19/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Only a few things...OK.


Only a few things in terms of equipment. I am not knowledgeable on other aspects of modern armed forces. And of course, this is my opinion, so you are welcome to criticize it and correct me if you disagree or if I am wrong

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian


quote:

ORIGINAL: TyeeBanzai


quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

In a short period of time (again, not specific), they "could" impose tariffs on nations intending to do business with them, or any other nation, that must transit through the SCS. This "could" be used as a source of income. In fact, under the proper circumstances, I could even see the US paying these tariffs if they thought that by refraining to do so would only hurt their own economy. These tariffs actually play right into the hands of "diplomacy", similar to the US's approach toward thwarting the nuclear effort in Iran.



I personally think this day will come in the early 2030s. China needs only a few more things- field the DF-41 en mass, field their J-20s as they wish (and possibly their J-31s), complete their carriers, complete the Type 096 SSBN fleet, and complete the H-20 and have it replace the H-6s. As they do this, they also perfect their asymmetric warfare capabilities, and their economy grows.

If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula however, it will be interesting to see if things change, in America's favor or China's.



There are more advanced things in storage which would already raise the fire-power and capability of China's armed forces considerably in a Sino-American War scenario. I'm not talking the Railgun and DEW development here, but more 'conventional' weapons, such as stealth AShMs (already known as "YJ-20") and long range hypersonic missiles like the DF-17. These things, in addition to more space-based assets of reconnaissance and communications will considerably enhance the PLA's capabilities at a relatively low price and fast pace, as compared to deploying large numbers of J-20s and H-20 stealth bombers, both of which are still waiting for their target engines (H-20 less so than the J-20).

But the best indication that China actually doesnt want to wage war against the US is the fact that the Minimum Deterrence doctrine for the nuclear forces have not been abolished to this day. China will grow their arsenal a little bit by modernizing/replacing old systems, but they are unlikely to pursue MAD, which would be a requirement for a conventional war against the US, deterring them from using nuclear weapons in response to losses suffered from Chinese conventional strikes.

Hence China wanting to choke off other Asian nation's shipping through the SCS is a totally idiotic idea. China's militarization of the SCS and the artificial islands were more of a overreaction to the feeble Vietnamese reclamation efforts that preceded them, fearing that Vietnam would begin with a Salami-slicing action to take hold of more islets and reefs in the area, which prompted China's own Salami-slicing response. Which were, of course, pretty big slices designed to cower the adversaries. Despite this, we still need to realize that Vietnam holds the majority of the reefs and islets in the SCS, including those who are naturally best suited for island bases. And the Vietnamese, nor the Chinese, have ever attempted to stop commercial shipping in the area since decades, so why the panic?


I don't see why minimum deterrence prevents China from starting a war with the US. Just the fact that the majority of their nuclear arsenal is TEL based makes it very survivable, and by MIRVing the DF-41, the amount of missiles/warheads required to deliver a full scale retaliatory strike against American military and civilian targets would not be at the same level as US or Soviet missile/warhead arsenals in the Cold War. Especially when China does not need to worry as much about a war with Russia and the US compared to... the US, which is in a position in which it theoretically could one day fight a two front war with Russia/China, the PLARF doesn't need 1000 missiles, if the Chinese wanted to bet on peace with Russia for a long time. If China is building a military that can engage anywhere however, the requirements for their nuclear forces change. Also, I didn't take into account India or Europe when I wrote this.

If the Chinese really wanted to, I think the idea of them taxing passage through the SCS isn't a crazy idea. Remember- the Chinese still do things like steal other country's intellectual property, commit various human rights abuses, and disregard their natural environment in the name of economic growth. To top it all off, they are building artificial islands in the SCS and claiming the entire body of water is theirs.

If they are even going to begin militarizing the waters, the idea of them closing of the SCS isn't that far fetched, and considering the "maximum profit" doctrine the CPC sometimes seems to use, it kind of makes sense. Although, I do believe the control of resources is the primary objective in their SCS endeavor, and that closing the seas would only be a secondary action that would come well after the Chinese military has fully modernized, or, if the US is shown to be extremely weak by some other international event.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 77
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/6/2018 10:42:20 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1351
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: offline
A recent article on the topic.....

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/china-has-nearly-conquered-the-south-china-sea-24371

(in reply to TyeeBanzai)
Post #: 78
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/7/2018 8:55:03 AM   
Hongjian

 

Posts: 805
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TyeeBanzai


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Only a few things...OK.


Only a few things in terms of equipment. I am not knowledgeable on other aspects of modern armed forces. And of course, this is my opinion, so you are welcome to criticize it and correct me if you disagree or if I am wrong

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian


quote:

ORIGINAL: TyeeBanzai


quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

In a short period of time (again, not specific), they "could" impose tariffs on nations intending to do business with them, or any other nation, that must transit through the SCS. This "could" be used as a source of income. In fact, under the proper circumstances, I could even see the US paying these tariffs if they thought that by refraining to do so would only hurt their own economy. These tariffs actually play right into the hands of "diplomacy", similar to the US's approach toward thwarting the nuclear effort in Iran.



I personally think this day will come in the early 2030s. China needs only a few more things- field the DF-41 en mass, field their J-20s as they wish (and possibly their J-31s), complete their carriers, complete the Type 096 SSBN fleet, and complete the H-20 and have it replace the H-6s. As they do this, they also perfect their asymmetric warfare capabilities, and their economy grows.

If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula however, it will be interesting to see if things change, in America's favor or China's.



There are more advanced things in storage which would already raise the fire-power and capability of China's armed forces considerably in a Sino-American War scenario. I'm not talking the Railgun and DEW development here, but more 'conventional' weapons, such as stealth AShMs (already known as "YJ-20") and long range hypersonic missiles like the DF-17. These things, in addition to more space-based assets of reconnaissance and communications will considerably enhance the PLA's capabilities at a relatively low price and fast pace, as compared to deploying large numbers of J-20s and H-20 stealth bombers, both of which are still waiting for their target engines (H-20 less so than the J-20).

But the best indication that China actually doesnt want to wage war against the US is the fact that the Minimum Deterrence doctrine for the nuclear forces have not been abolished to this day. China will grow their arsenal a little bit by modernizing/replacing old systems, but they are unlikely to pursue MAD, which would be a requirement for a conventional war against the US, deterring them from using nuclear weapons in response to losses suffered from Chinese conventional strikes.

Hence China wanting to choke off other Asian nation's shipping through the SCS is a totally idiotic idea. China's militarization of the SCS and the artificial islands were more of a overreaction to the feeble Vietnamese reclamation efforts that preceded them, fearing that Vietnam would begin with a Salami-slicing action to take hold of more islets and reefs in the area, which prompted China's own Salami-slicing response. Which were, of course, pretty big slices designed to cower the adversaries. Despite this, we still need to realize that Vietnam holds the majority of the reefs and islets in the SCS, including those who are naturally best suited for island bases. And the Vietnamese, nor the Chinese, have ever attempted to stop commercial shipping in the area since decades, so why the panic?


I don't see why minimum deterrence prevents China from starting a war with the US. Just the fact that the majority of their nuclear arsenal is TEL based makes it very survivable, and by MIRVing the DF-41, the amount of missiles/warheads required to deliver a full scale retaliatory strike against American military and civilian targets would not be at the same level as US or Soviet missile/warhead arsenals in the Cold War. Especially when China does not need to worry as much about a war with Russia and the US compared to... the US, which is in a position in which it theoretically could one day fight a two front war with Russia/China, the PLARF doesn't need 1000 missiles, if the Chinese wanted to bet on peace with Russia for a long time. If China is building a military that can engage anywhere however, the requirements for their nuclear forces change. Also, I didn't take into account India or Europe when I wrote this.

If the Chinese really wanted to, I think the idea of them taxing passage through the SCS isn't a crazy idea. Remember- the Chinese still do things like steal other country's intellectual property, commit various human rights abuses, and disregard their natural environment in the name of economic growth. To top it all off, they are building artificial islands in the SCS and claiming the entire body of water is theirs.

If they are even going to begin militarizing the waters, the idea of them closing of the SCS isn't that far fetched, and considering the "maximum profit" doctrine the CPC sometimes seems to use, it kind of makes sense. Although, I do believe the control of resources is the primary objective in their SCS endeavor, and that closing the seas would only be a secondary action that would come well after the Chinese military has fully modernized, or, if the US is shown to be extremely weak by some other international event.


There's quite a difference between internally directed action, like human rights abuses and using foreign IP without license, and externally directed action like choke off shipping or tax foreign vessels transiting the SCS. China's may be an authoritarian country that does not evoke much love by the West in terms of their political system, but one need to realize that authoritarian countries in an economic transition need external peace more than stable and mature democratic countries, who can be sure that due to their cyclic nature of election terms, noone actually has to take any responsibility for botched foreign policy decisions like ill-advised interventions, wars and destabilizations.
China has their allergic spots that would provoke the use of military force by the leadership, such as Taiwan and foreign suggestion that certain provinces should split off, but in terms of foreign policy, the CPC cannot take the risk of doing hugely escalatory moves that would resound back at home - the CPC has no term limits to hide behind. Whatever happens to the country, every CPC leadership has to take responsibility for. And an open war against the US because of actually less important and less vital reasons as the SCS islands is not something they would do.

(in reply to TyeeBanzai)
Post #: 79
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/8/2018 11:30:12 PM   
TyeeBanzai


Posts: 23
Joined: 1/19/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian


quote:

ORIGINAL: TyeeBanzai


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Only a few things...OK.


Only a few things in terms of equipment. I am not knowledgeable on other aspects of modern armed forces. And of course, this is my opinion, so you are welcome to criticize it and correct me if you disagree or if I am wrong

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian


quote:

ORIGINAL: TyeeBanzai


quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

In a short period of time (again, not specific), they "could" impose tariffs on nations intending to do business with them, or any other nation, that must transit through the SCS. This "could" be used as a source of income. In fact, under the proper circumstances, I could even see the US paying these tariffs if they thought that by refraining to do so would only hurt their own economy. These tariffs actually play right into the hands of "diplomacy", similar to the US's approach toward thwarting the nuclear effort in Iran.



I personally think this day will come in the early 2030s. China needs only a few more things- field the DF-41 en mass, field their J-20s as they wish (and possibly their J-31s), complete their carriers, complete the Type 096 SSBN fleet, and complete the H-20 and have it replace the H-6s. As they do this, they also perfect their asymmetric warfare capabilities, and their economy grows.

If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula however, it will be interesting to see if things change, in America's favor or China's.



There are more advanced things in storage which would already raise the fire-power and capability of China's armed forces considerably in a Sino-American War scenario. I'm not talking the Railgun and DEW development here, but more 'conventional' weapons, such as stealth AShMs (already known as "YJ-20") and long range hypersonic missiles like the DF-17. These things, in addition to more space-based assets of reconnaissance and communications will considerably enhance the PLA's capabilities at a relatively low price and fast pace, as compared to deploying large numbers of J-20s and H-20 stealth bombers, both of which are still waiting for their target engines (H-20 less so than the J-20).

But the best indication that China actually doesnt want to wage war against the US is the fact that the Minimum Deterrence doctrine for the nuclear forces have not been abolished to this day. China will grow their arsenal a little bit by modernizing/replacing old systems, but they are unlikely to pursue MAD, which would be a requirement for a conventional war against the US, deterring them from using nuclear weapons in response to losses suffered from Chinese conventional strikes.

Hence China wanting to choke off other Asian nation's shipping through the SCS is a totally idiotic idea. China's militarization of the SCS and the artificial islands were more of a overreaction to the feeble Vietnamese reclamation efforts that preceded them, fearing that Vietnam would begin with a Salami-slicing action to take hold of more islets and reefs in the area, which prompted China's own Salami-slicing response. Which were, of course, pretty big slices designed to cower the adversaries. Despite this, we still need to realize that Vietnam holds the majority of the reefs and islets in the SCS, including those who are naturally best suited for island bases. And the Vietnamese, nor the Chinese, have ever attempted to stop commercial shipping in the area since decades, so why the panic?


I don't see why minimum deterrence prevents China from starting a war with the US. Just the fact that the majority of their nuclear arsenal is TEL based makes it very survivable, and by MIRVing the DF-41, the amount of missiles/warheads required to deliver a full scale retaliatory strike against American military and civilian targets would not be at the same level as US or Soviet missile/warhead arsenals in the Cold War. Especially when China does not need to worry as much about a war with Russia and the US compared to... the US, which is in a position in which it theoretically could one day fight a two front war with Russia/China, the PLARF doesn't need 1000 missiles, if the Chinese wanted to bet on peace with Russia for a long time. If China is building a military that can engage anywhere however, the requirements for their nuclear forces change. Also, I didn't take into account India or Europe when I wrote this.

If the Chinese really wanted to, I think the idea of them taxing passage through the SCS isn't a crazy idea. Remember- the Chinese still do things like steal other country's intellectual property, commit various human rights abuses, and disregard their natural environment in the name of economic growth. To top it all off, they are building artificial islands in the SCS and claiming the entire body of water is theirs.

If they are even going to begin militarizing the waters, the idea of them closing of the SCS isn't that far fetched, and considering the "maximum profit" doctrine the CPC sometimes seems to use, it kind of makes sense. Although, I do believe the control of resources is the primary objective in their SCS endeavor, and that closing the seas would only be a secondary action that would come well after the Chinese military has fully modernized, or, if the US is shown to be extremely weak by some other international event.


There's quite a difference between internally directed action, like human rights abuses and using foreign IP without license, and externally directed action like choke off shipping or tax foreign vessels transiting the SCS. China's may be an authoritarian country that does not evoke much love by the West in terms of their political system, but one need to realize that authoritarian countries in an economic transition need external peace more than stable and mature democratic countries, who can be sure that due to their cyclic nature of election terms, noone actually has to take any responsibility for botched foreign policy decisions like ill-advised interventions, wars and destabilizations.
China has their allergic spots that would provoke the use of military force by the leadership, such as Taiwan and foreign suggestion that certain provinces should split off, but in terms of foreign policy, the CPC cannot take the risk of doing hugely escalatory moves that would resound back at home - the CPC has no term limits to hide behind. Whatever happens to the country, every CPC leadership has to take responsibility for. And an open war against the US because of actually less important and less vital reasons as the SCS islands is not something they would do.


That is a good point. Does the CPC think the US would risk war themselves over the islands however? If the CPC wants to be seen as powerful, and believes the US would not be willing to stop a closure/taxation, they may be tempted to begin charging for passage through the SCS.

At this moment in time however, I agree that war is unlikely, and international image, combined with internal image as you stated, is what the CPC is focusing on, and a "anti-globalization"-esque action liking closing the SCS unless countries pay would be bad.

(in reply to Hongjian)
Post #: 80
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive - 2/9/2018 12:13:47 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1892
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TyeeBanzai

That is a good point. Does the CPC think the US would risk war themselves over the islands however? If the CPC wants to be seen as powerful, and believes the US would not be willing to stop a closure/taxation, they may be tempted to begin charging for passage through the SCS.

At this moment in time however, I agree that war is unlikely, and international image, combined with internal image as you stated, is what the CPC is focusing on, and a "anti-globalization"-esque action liking closing the SCS unless countries pay would be bad.

Being a highwayman of SCS is the least China would want to be, especially for the image of Belt and Road Initiative. If China must gain territorial profit from other country around SCS, why not to establish infrastructures for trading and local development? Leasing ports and aiding for railway projects is a current trend for promoting Chinese influence, and "teach people to learn fishing than just offering fishes" can also provide steady fortune to China too.

You may still call it a robbing because of the territorial disputes, but this is how business work to improve the national strength.

_____________________________


(in reply to TyeeBanzai)
Post #: 81
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.246