Combat Mission Shanghai Pact: Ring of Fire 2021

[LUCASWILLEN05]

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I think a 2nd US Civil War scenario is equally likely to what you are describing above, probably set right about the time someone tries to reintroduce the draft. 

I think you need to do some research into the possibility of war with Chna A reintroduction of the draft is only plausible udder the conditions of an extended conventional great power war

There are countries like Swedan who actually have reintroduced the draft and hat without being at war]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/02/sweden-reintroduce-conscription-amid-rising-baltic-tensions

I grant you i  would be unpopular now nd it could be unpopular at the ime. Which s why extreme conditions ie and extended conventional conflict of World War proportiions would be required, And it would be months into such a conflict before the legislation would be debated and implemented

https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/03/27/oppose-draft/

it won't happen in any situation short of this.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

2 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

If you want a (much more) realistic chance of American Tanks fighting Chinese Tanks, focus on a hypothetical clash between expeditionary units in Africa.  Both countries have been expanding their roles in the region and it would be a much smaller jump of the shark to come up with a situation leading to a clash their than, once again, to come up with a reason for US Tanks to roll into Beijing.

Re: "Only 100-2000 miles of Siberia to conquer"
I don't care if it's 2000 miles of straight and level superhighway on a sunny day, that's a logistical nightmare.  Now throw that into Siberia and you're talking complete nonsense.  Even further nonsense if you think the Russians would somehow be okay with 2000 miles of Siberia getting conquered.  That's also a *huge* range of distance you've clearly pulled out of thin air.

Re: "2-3 years into the war"
If you think the world would survive 2-3 years of a threeway (or even two-way) war between the US, Russia, and China I have a whole lot of beachfront property in Alaska to sell you dude. 

Re: "Second civil war"
Don't give him any ideas.

Look Lucas, you clearly want to see BF3/4 played at the RTT level rather than the FPS.  You need to realize that the plot in those games are absurd and any number of fiction books you cite are just as crazy. 

This. Is. An. Impossible. Scenario.  I just don't see BF taking the time to come up with a plausible situation for your scenario.  There is no reason, nor reasonable capability for the US to invade China under any circumstances.  A draft won't increase the number of amphbious assault ships needed to invade the most populated nation on the planet.  A draft won't increase the number of highly-technical warships needed to escort those same ships into harms way, nor the missiles to fill their VLS cells nor the aircraft overhead.  You cannot simply hand-wave away Naval engagements in a realistic war scenario with China, a naval power, fighting the US, a naval power.

I suggest two courses of action for you:  Look into coming up with a reason for US and Chinese expeditionary forces to clash in Africa.  This is not an unreasonable thing to look at.  Option two is to acquire Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations and wargame to your hearts content the many Naval and Air engagements much more realistically possible between the US and China.  Hell, they're even releasing a standalone DLC on it next week set in 2020 that might be right up your alley.

People thought World War 1 was "impossible" It wasn't - war broke out in August 1914. And a 1914 style crisis is how this could happen. In fact the ONLY way it can. Did you bother taking a couple of minutes reading this article??? I'll bed you didn't

http://www.cityam.com/245098/south-china-sea-powder-keg-disturbing-echoes-1914

Consider all those flash points along the Pacific Rim that could be a potential Sarajevo. This COULD happen

https://ericmargolis.com/2011/11/1914-deja-vu-in-the-south-china-sea-2/

The South China Sea is the most likely place - you need to look at the geopolitical aspects including al the states involved and you need to look at why the US would have to get involved. I really do not see why someone as informed an intelligent as yourself does not appear to get this fact which is so simple that I, a mere History and Politics graduate can see it

I am certainly not waving away naval and air engagements. If I were I could make ridiculous arguments about invasions of Australia, Alaska, New Zealand. I have made no such assumptions, I categorically stated stated hat the assumedd lansd war in this scenario woukld be fought in

SOUTH EAST ASIA

INDIA

KOREA

POSSIBLY SIBERIA

All continental areas that the PLA could invade as even a cursory glance at Google Earth and a cursory knowledge of wars China has historically fought. Either you have not bothered to look at a map or you have not read my posts or you have failed even to consider the History. With respect I see no point in wasting my time on continued discussion with you util you have done so. It takes a lot to get me annoyed.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'm reasonably well informed on the subject, believe me, however as has already been repeatedly pointed out, that war would by & large take place at sea & in the air.....A limited fight in North Korea is possible, but invading mainland China or Siberia?  You would have to be mad to even attempt it.

Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule. I do not know whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: "Do not go fighting with your land armies in China". It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

[LUCASWILLEN05]

On 5/8/2017 at 11:42 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:

You're doing this on the wrong game website. A war with China is not a crazy idea but it would involve very little ground combat. If you are serious about this look into Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations.

War with Russia is also not a crazy idea but it would not happen in southeast Asia.

I agree war with Russia would probably not begin in Asia though that does not mean Russian forces might not be fighting in the Fare East. I see Russia getting involved a little later in the conflict over something that happens in the Middle East or Europe. After all may Cold War 1980s scenarios did have Soviet forces fighting in the Far East - such as the War that Never Was, the 7th Fleet Board Game etc. Strategic reality has not changed very much since then. I o however see Russian ground forces fighting in the Far East as taking a lower profile role unless or until Siberia is invaded - very much a mid to late war scenario. Otherwise Rusian ground forces will be fighting mostly in Europe and maybe parts of the Middle East

[LUCASWILLEN05]

12 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'm reasonably well informed on the subject, believe me, however as has already been repeatedly pointed out, that war would by & large take place at sea & in the air.....A limited fight in North Korea is possible, but invading mainland China or Siberia?  You would have to be mad to even attempt it.

 

 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

As I have repeatedly said ground fighting is possible on any part of the Asian continent. Korea is certainly one place but th US may decide to deploy to South East Asia in a (doomed) attempt o stop a Chinese Blitzkrieg - 1940 is my model for that. Also India which is a US ally .in this scenario. In fact much of the ground war in RoF might very well be there.

I agree there would be a lot of air and naval combat even early in the war nd, unless the Chinese have some sort of secret weapon the maritime war would quickly be won by the US. Which is why the US can deploy forces to the Asian mainland early in the war and why these forces could be "Dunkirked" if or when necessary. It is also why. later i the war once he US has the manpower and the equipment to do it invasions of China and Siberia are options. We are npt however talking about occupying he whole country. We are talking about defeating the PLA on their home turf which is what has to happen barring a political solution or a Chinese surrender. Occupying Beijing and some strategic coastal areas can be enough. The point of gravity is the PLA and the Communist regime in Beijing. Much the same point as regards Russia. You only occupy th bits you want like the naval and air bases (Sakhalin, Vladivostok etc) We are NOT talking about occupying all of Siberia which would likely be considered unneccessary and unafordable/ Very much like he WW2 Pacific War strategy which avoided certain large Japanese bases like Rabaul and big islands such as Formosa

[Rinaldi]

Comparing National Service in states that border or share territorial waters with Russia and the re-introduction of a draft in the United States is....a stretch, to put it mildly.

Can you give us a reason why the Chinese would intercede on behalf of North Korea? Could you give us a reason why, unilaterally, the US would recklessly risk an escalation of a conflict around North Korea by threatening China? It's just all too muddy for me. Pages and pages of potential plot and none of it is remotely coherent, interesting or plausible to me, I'm sorry.

[slysniper]

Threads like this crack me up. The realist and self titled experts come out to snuff out such foolish thoughts of a game portraying something that is not likely in their thought process.

Well, thanks for all the great wisdom posted. You even managed to stretch your thinking to give a few somewhat possible situations that could be a game backdrop.

But really, if I was the game designer, I wanted to model the stuff from China as a good change of pace and create a believable back story for the game. I would ask myself these simple questions. Why does China have such a army presently and why have they created their army with their present forces. What do they see the need for their armor forces as being. Answer these questions, then you have the backdrop for the game.

I have my thoughts on that and it would make a great game, but I will leave them to myself, since I really don't need the future tellers here saying they can prove what the future will not be.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that at all, merely trying to flesh out a plausible background for a title that might be set in the far east.....This means certain geopolitical and strategic realities have to be taken into consideration. 

The US cannot simply drive all of it's armour into China, it has to get it into the theatre first.....Based on the structure of Chinese A2AD it's entirely likely that attempting to achieve that end that could cost a carrier and any number of other large vessels accompanying it. 

With a carrier battlegroup on the bottom and a now isolated force in Korea facing the entire PLA, would the US press the war, back off, go nuclear? 

None of these options make for a very viable CM game, so looking at a limited war in Korea (where the US has forward deployed forces) is an infinitely more plausible proposition IMHO.

Note, the 'O' in IMHO.....It stands for opinion. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[slysniper]

I FOR ONE DONT NEED THE US AS BEING A PART OF THE MAIN STORY LINE.

Let the main players be other countries, the US. could be a added module. but not the main backdrop for the story.

 

[Codename Duchess]

6 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

People thought World War 1 was "impossible" It wasn't - war broke out in August 1914. And a 1914 style crisis is how this could happen. In fact the ONLY way it can. Did you bother taking a couple of minutes reading this article??? I'll bed you didn't

http://www.cityam.com/245098/south-china-sea-powder-keg-disturbing-echoes-1914

Consider all those flash points along the Pacific Rim that could be a potential Sarajevo. This COULD happen

https://ericmargolis.com/2011/11/1914-deja-vu-in-the-south-china-sea-2/

The South China Sea is the most likely place - you need to look at the geopolitical aspects including al the states involved and you need to look at why the US would have to get involved. I really do not see why someone as informed an intelligent as yourself does not appear to get this fact which is so simple that I, a mere History and Politics graduate can see it

I am certainly not waving away naval and air engagements. If I were I could make ridiculous arguments about invasions of Australia, Alaska, New Zealand. I have made no such assumptions, I categorically stated stated hat the assumedd lansd war in this scenario woukld be fought in

SOUTH EAST ASIA

INDIA

KOREA

POSSIBLY SIBERIA

All continental areas that the PLA could invade as even a cursory glance at Google Earth and a cursory knowledge of wars China has historically fought. Either you have not bothered to look at a map or you have not read my posts or you have failed even to consider the History. With respect I see no point in wasting my time on continued discussion with you util you have done so. It takes a lot to get me annoyed.

Okay here we go.

I'm a Pacific Fleet Rhino Driver (mine).  I've sailed through the SCS in a Carrier Strike Group.  I've literally intercepted Chinese Patrol aircraft (not my photo) and seen those ****ty little coral reef "islands" (also not my photo) they are building up with my own two eyes.  I've flown with Malaysian Sukhois that were acting like Chinese Sukhois.  And I'm going to do all of that again.  Besides briefings on the matter, I've read countless (non-fiction) books, articles, podcasts, public and private speakers on the matter.  If *anyone* in this forum has an appreciation for Chinese interest in the South China Sea, I'd wager I'm that person.  I've even read your article comparing it to 1914.

And I still don't believe for one second that there is a reasonable expectation of a US land engagement of the kind of scale you are envisioning. 

1. The US could not get ground forces to Taiwan in time to stop a Chinese invasion before the Navy did or the Taiwanese lost.  The American taxpayer would not stand for a massive D-Day effort to recapture Taiwan if China was victorious
2. Tanks aren't needed to capture any of the aforementioned reef/islands, nor do the Chinese keep tanks on the same.
3. China has no reason to go into full on war with the US over North Korea.  More realistic outcomes have been previously discussed.  China is pretty sick of NK's **** by this point, if you haven't noticed.  I defer to @panzersaurkrautwerfer
4. The Chinese-Indian border is home to a mountain range that makes it practically impassible to large ground forces.  There's a reason something like 98% of Chinese trade is done via the sea.
5. China has no reason to invade Japan.
6. America has no reason or means to invade mainland China.
7. America certainly would not invade China via Siberia.  Logistically it's a nightmare.  Strategically it's suicide.  Objectively there's no reason.  If anything, China would be more likely to invade Siberia.

 

Is conflict with China possible?  Absolutely.  There's a lot of pieces grinding against each other in that region, and not everyone is friendly.  But the sheer leap you'd have to take from a realistic possibility (Chinese ship sinks a Vietnamese frigate, or something, leading to a nasty diplomatic crisis similar to the Turkish shoot-down of the Russian SU-24, but little else) to a full on, multi-year, full on invasion (you really aren't grasping how physically impossible, nevermind unnecessary this is) is out of this world.  Any realistic conflict between China and the US would be largely confined to the Air and Sea domains.  There's no reason or means for it to occur otherwise.  It certainly wouldn't last 3 years because the world economy would utterly collapse, nor does either side have a strategic objective worthy of the effort.  This has been backed up pretty much universally by those studying the possibilities.

Here's the thing, I would live to smash Type 99s against Abrams as much as any of us in a Combat Mission setting.  The problem is there's no realistic reason for it to occur in a manner that you have indicated.  I have attempted to offer reasons why, and have presented my own alternate (a clash of expeditionary forces in Africa, think Pristina gone wrong).  Battlefront has released two games now presenting future scenarios (at the time).  They clearly did their research in building the back story leading to both conflicts (and note that both are fairly confined in their scope, a NATO curb-stomp of Syria as it was and a US-RUS slugfest of about a Division+ each in Central Ukraine).  You're attempting to justify the invasion of the third largest by size and first by population country.  It just isn't meant to be.
 

If I were you, look into Chinese interests in Africa.  Pick a country for them to send military advisors to.  Pick a neighboring country for the US to send advisors to.  Go from there.  It's an area of the world given little interest in modern gaming, and a more realistic background for a terrestrial engagement.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Codename Duchess

[Sgt.Squarehead]

[db_zero]

I've brought up the topic of Asia in the past and from the semi-official response will never happen. If you want a modern Asia fix there are a few. I stick to CMNAO. Next week a new DLC that will have things like EMP, rail-guns, high energy laser should allow some interesting US-North Korea and other Asia based scenarios to be tried out. There is a DLC out now that covers Korea.

Of course CMNAO isn't an in the weeds type of game. The only other ones that come to mind that cover Asia is something like Wargame Red dragon which I could never really get into. I did play People's General and Force 21 back in the day...

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

@Codename Duchess

Speak of the devil, and he shall appear.

There's enough stuff I learned in classified boxes that I cannot share, but the jist of what I can share is China will not aid the DPRK in attacking the South, and in the event of a DPRK collapse and ROK/US intervention, it will fortify its border to keep North Koreans out because that's the last thing they want is North Korean refugees wandering around on its side of the border.

The DPRK's value to China is limited to being a captive market.  Once it goes to war it loses all of that value, and China is more inclined to try to curry favor with the ROK to maintain regional influence.  

This isn't a time of great powers and wars of national survival.  A US-China land war in Asia is about as likely as a Chinese assault landing in California.  

[exsonic01]

5 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

@Codename Duchess

Speak of the devil, and he shall appear.

There's enough stuff I learned in classified boxes that I cannot share, but the jist of what I can share is China will not aid the DPRK in attacking the South, and in the event of a DPRK collapse and ROK/US intervention, it will fortify its border to keep North Koreans out because that's the last thing they want is North Korean refugees wandering around on its side of the border.

The DPRK's value to China is limited to being a captive market.  Once it goes to war it loses all of that value, and China is more inclined to try to curry favor with the ROK to maintain regional influence.  

This isn't a time of great powers and wars of national survival.  A US-China land war in Asia is about as likely as a Chinese assault landing in California.  

Nah, you guyz too much underestimate the PRC's will to achieve the regional supremacy. If Kim regime falls, they will send troops over the border, try to set the puppet government in the northern part of Korean peninsula. PRC will never allow unified Korea as a democratic nation and one of western ally. Their first priority is to keep the Korea divided. To achieve that, they will support Kim regime if it is needed. But if that option is not viable, they will try to make their own. 

[db_zero]

At one time the US and USSR faced off with MAD. Now the US and China face off in MADE (Mutual Assured Destruction of Economies). A war would really hose both economies. That being said there is a game going on over some reefs in the South China Sea. Huge reserves of resources is reputed to be under the ocean in the area and the Chinese fear the US could easily interdict the area and cut off the oil supply to China if conflict took place.

China would definitely fears any unrest or collapse of North Korea as they would not want a huge refugee problem on their shared borders. The world has changed since 1950 and the likelihood of another major US-China clash in Korea is remote.

An air-naval clash would be more likely, but once again a pretty remote chance of that happening.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Shall we agree that a 1914 style crisis is the only way something like this could get started. Sure it is complicated but international crisis can be highly complex affairs as shown by the current real world conflict in the Middle East which, as all of us will agree is a real "Gordian Knot"

We currently have a game where the US commits ground forces into an unlikely and ill advised conflict. Exactly why does US/NATO  commit ground forces to Ukraine? Despite the obvious risks. Why would the US and NATO take such risks in real life? For war gaming purposes we assume that the political decisions have been made -  otherwise we can't have our war game!

[LUCASWILLEN05]

3 hours ago, db_zero said:

At one time the US and USSR faced off with MAD. Now the US and China face off in MADE (Mutual Assured Destruction of Economies). A war would really hose both economies. That being said there is a game going on over some reefs in the South China Sea. Huge reserves of resources is reputed to be under the ocean in the area and the Chinese fear the US could easily interdict the area and cut off the oil supply to China if conflict took place.

China would definitely fears any unrest or collapse of North Korea as they would not want a huge refugee problem on their shared borders. The world has changed since 1950 and the likelihood of another major US-China clash in Korea is remote.

An air-naval clash would be more likely, but once again a pretty remote chance of that happening.

North Korean collapse is another interesting possibility. A few months back I read  Larry Bond novel covering the issue

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29211001-red-phoenix-burning

A crisis may be possible in which China, he US and South Korea get drawn into a North Korean civil war and a military clash follows. There are plenty of possibilities.

There is also the India - Pakistan situation which is needed to change all of this from a purely regional conflict to a full scale regional or World War situation. There is always a lot of tension between these two nations who have fought several wars in the last few decades most recently he 1999 Kargil War. Then there is the Kashmir issue which. in he real world seems to be heating up again

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/spontaneous-protests-wrongfoot-police-loosening-indias-grip-kashmir-003140046.html

Perhaps the spark that leads to war on the Indian sub continent is another Mumbai style terrorist attack at a time when tensions on the sub continent are already high and US/Chinese forces are already in combat thanks to the existing crises in the South China Sea and Korea Multiple crises are coming together at once in a set of very unfortunate circumstances - which is how World Wars have been known to start. Pakistan is China's ally and Beijing decides to help its' ally (Beijing is worried about the India - Pakistan war going nuclear)

[LUCASWILLEN05]

4 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

@Codename Duchess

Speak of the devil, and he shall appear.

There's enough stuff I learned in classified boxes that I cannot share, but the jist of what I can share is China will not aid the DPRK in attacking the South, and in the event of a DPRK collapse and ROK/US intervention, it will fortify its border to keep North Koreans out because that's the last thing they want is North Korean refugees wandering around on its side of the border.

The DPRK's value to China is limited to being a captive market.  Once it goes to war it loses all of that value, and China is more inclined to try to curry favor with the ROK to maintain regional influence.  

This isn't a time of great powers and wars of national survival.  A US-China land war in Asia is about as likely as a Chinese assault landing in California.  

maybe you would like to consider current world tensions in the very complex Middle  East Crisis and the tensions in the Far East and in Eastern Europe. Since the end of the Cold War your view may have been correct but, looking at the multiple crises in the real world today all that could be about to change.I suggest to you that in many ways the real world situation in 2017 is actually more dangerous than the situation circa 1983 - 1985. Unlike then where we had a bipolar world we now have a multipolar world - and multipolar systems are more prone to war  http://www.uamd.edu.al/new/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/A.Tomja-9.pdf

[exsonic01]

4 hours ago, db_zero said:

At one time the US and USSR faced off with MAD. Now the US and China face off in MADE (Mutual Assured Destruction of Economies). A war would really hose both economies. That being said there is a game going on over some reefs in the South China Sea. Huge reserves of resources is reputed to be under the ocean in the area and the Chinese fear the US could easily interdict the area and cut off the oil supply to China if conflict took place.

China would definitely fears any unrest or collapse of North Korea as they would not want a huge refugee problem on their shared borders. The world has changed since 1950 and the likelihood of another major US-China clash in Korea is remote.

An air-naval clash would be more likely, but once again a pretty remote chance of that happening.

Well said, now the world is connected to each other more than ever. But that never means that PRC will give up their strategic plan of 1st / 2nd island chain, just because of economic reason.

It is well known that there are overall 2000+ tanks under Northern Theater Command (previously Shenyang Military Region), and ~1000 of them are supposed to be ZTZ 99 and their later variants like ZTZ99A2. Is anyone in this forum really thinks that that amount of 3~3.5 generation heavy armors and mechanized forces are there, just only for the refugee control and humanitarian missions? Really? Is this just really a coincidence, that major part of their annual drills and exercises are performed very close to PRC-DPRK border, instead of PRC-Russian border? They have very very clear intention and objective for their 'vital national interest' like Russians do now. 

We need to understand PRC's intention is to build the buffer zone against western influence. They would invade into the DPRK border at the very first sign of coup against Kim regime or any other 'irregular' situation. I bet PRC already secured wide spy networks and links inside the DPRK, they would know very fast if anything happens. First they will try to save the Kim's regime, try to keep the Korea divided as much as possible, saving DPRK head and system, and keep everything as same as possible. They really don't want change anything. They wish DPRK to alive, to perform the 'meat shield' role. If that option is not viable, PLA forces would occupy the northern part of Pyongyang, and they will try to make the new puppet government, easier to control than Kim's regime, but good enough to play the 'buffer role' as much as possible against RoK and US ally. Then PRC will withdraw their forces, after 'approve' the puppet as 'sovereign state', leaving several elements of 'advisory group' inside. 

In part, you're right, there's not that much chance of land clash between US army vs PLA even in this scenario. However, if, only if, RoK + US demands PLA to leave from entire Korean peninsula, and demand them to cross the border and go back to China again, then there's some chance that we could see some action. It is one of the most possible and very plausible scenario. But, like I mentioned in the prior post, this depends on the economic ability and potential of PRC at the moment. 

Vast amount of KPA forces are deployed south of the Pyongyang, as a result, northern defense line of Pyongyang would be relatively weak. Plus, western part of NK (including north Pyongyang) are not that mountainous, relatively flat. All of those conditions are perfect for the PLA mech/armors. Plus, I think PRC thinks that they would not need to face the US forces, if they are really really fast enough to occupy the north of Pyongyang. 

Overall, from my knowledge and information gathered from here and there, PRC would not give up DPRK. If Kim's regime fails, they will try to build the new meat shield for them.  

Edited May 11, 2017 by exsonic01

[LUCASWILLEN05]

4 minutes ago, exsonic01 said:

Well said, now the world is connected to each other more than ever. But that never means that PRC will give up their strategic plan of 1st / 2nd island chain, just because of economic reason.

It is well known that there are overall 2000+ tanks under Northern Theater Command (previously Shenyang Military Region), and ~1000 of them are supposed to be ZTZ 99 and their later variants like ZTZ99A2. Is anyone in this forum really thinks that that amount of 3~3.5 generation heavy armors and mechanized forces are there, just only for the refugee control and humanitarian missions? Really? Is this just really a coincidence, that major part of their annual drills and exercises are performed very close to PRC-DPRK border, instead of PRC-Russian border? They have very very clear intention and objective for their 'vital national interest' like Russians do now. 

We need to understand PRC's intention is to build the buffer zone against western influence. They would invade into the DPRK border at the very first sign of coup against Kim regime or any other 'irregular' situation. I bet PRC already contains numerous spy networks and links inside the DPRK, they would know very fast if anything happens. First they will try to save the Kim's regime, try to keep the Korea divided as much as possible, saving DPRK head and system, and keep everything as same as possible. They really don't want change anything. They wish DPRK to alive, to perform the 'meat shield' role. If that option is not viable, PLA forces would occupy the northern part of Pyongyang, and they will try to make the new puppet government, easier to control than Kim's regime, but good enough to play the 'buffer role' as much as possible against RoK and US ally. Then PRC will withdraw their forces, after 'approve' the puppet as 'sovereign state', leaving several elements of 'advisory group' inside. 

In part, you're right, there's not that much chance of land clash between US army vs PLA even in this scenario. However, if, only if, RoK + US demands PLA to leave from entire Korean peninsula, and demand them to cross the border and go back to China again, then there's some chance that we could see some action. It is one of the most possible and very plausible scenario. But, like I mentioned in the prior post, this depends on the economic ability and potential of PRC at the moment. 

Vast amount of KPA forces are deployed south of the Pyongyang, as a result, northern defense line of Pyongyang would be relatively weak. Plus, western part of NK (including north Pyongyang) are not that mountainous, relatively flat. All of those conditions are perfect for the PLA mech/armors. Plus, I think PRC thinks that they would not need to face the US forces, if they are really really fast enough to occupy the north of Pyongyang. 

Overall, from my knowledge and information gathered from here and there, PRC would not give up DPRK. If Kim's regime fails, they will try to build the new meat shield for them.  

Yes, regarding the Korean element of th wider regional crisis we are developing I can go with you on something along those lines but bar in mind this is not happening in isolation - what we are developing is a wider crisis along the lines of the July 1914 Crisis model (see my next post)

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Yes it is complicated but international crises can get very complicated. Just look at the Middle East conflict in the real world and you should see that

Try using the July Crisis of 1914 as the model for a Far East Crisis leading to conflagration in the Far East. Consider the roles accident, misjudgment and miscalculation played  in 1914 and recall that human nature has not changed. Assuming that all this begins in a conflict over the Spratley Islands  which draws China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei in through their competing claims. The US is drawn into th conflict to defend maritime shipping law. Military forces are maneuvering in close proximity. Someone miscalculates (say some hotshot pilot or a submarine captain exceeding his orders) turning an international crisis into a full scale war

Now is the time to start throwing in some wildcards. In North Korea Kim jong Un's regime finally collapses. A general attempts a partially successful military coup resulting in a North Korean Civil War and a massive civil war and humanitarian crisis results South Korea with some US military support enters North Korea. China has been backing the remnants f the regime. Seeing the US/South Korean crossing of he DMZ China sends units of the PLA into North Korea. With the US and China already at war over the South China Sea a military clash is inevitable.

Now, just to make matters even worse event start heating up on the Indian subcontinent. With tensions heating up over Kashmir due to inter-communal rioting and some insurgency backed by the ISI terrorists mount a huge terrorist attack, let's say it is Mumbai again. Hundreds of civilians die. The attack is blamed on the ISI. India decides to take out terrorist training camps in Kashmir and along the Pakistani side of the border. Inevitably the Pakistanis resist. To prevent a nuclear exchange China helps their Pakistani ally and uses force against India

Note that the above crisis develops over perhaps three or four months, not  few days. Several weeks seems like a sensible minimum but a ccouple of months is probably more likely

[Thomm]

Would the one-child policy affect China's readyness for a conflict?

I just calculated how many men were there in my grandparents generation at the time of WW2: The number is 11 (my grandfathers plus all brothers combined).

End even more women.

This Youth Bulge provided a lot of manpower. Now China certainly has a lot of manpower herself, but with the majority of sons being single children (my guess) the readiness to sacrifice them must be comparatively low (in the spirit of Gunnar Heinsohn).

Best regards,
Thomm

[LUCASWILLEN05]

45 minutes ago, Thomm said:

Would the one-child policy affect China's readyness for a conflict?

I just calculated how many men were there in my grandparents generation at the time of WW2: The number is 11 (my grandfathers plus all brothers combined).

End even more women.

This Youth Bulge provided a lot of manpower. Now China certainly has a lot of manpower herself, but with the majority of sons being single children (my guess) the readiness to sacrifice them must be comparatively low (in the spirit of Gunnar Heinsohn).

Best regards,
Thomm

There are an awful lot of Chinese. Are there the jobs for them to do - and what happens if the economy contracts. What about feeding them? A lot of manpower as you say - and many of them will be young men of military age. The armed forces will provide something for them to do - but the military will also require a role. This could be holding down the people - or it might be foreign wars. Successful foreign wars are likely to be popular - as long as they are successful.

If we assume a massive regional conflict circa 2021 China is likely to enjoy massive early success at least on land. Prhaps a 21stt Century Asian version of the Blitzkrieg campaigns of 1939 - 1942 or of Japan's conquests from 1941 - 2. Except of course, in this scenario China's military expansion is on the Asian mainland, not in the Pacific. The latter is unlikely unless China finds a way to defeat US sea power. In the absence of that China must adopt a Continental strategy, not a Maritime strategy which is where CM games come in. China has the same problem the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany te Central Powers of the First World War and Napoleonic There is no way to beat the Maritime power at sea in the absence of some secret weapon hat China does not have

 

[Codename Duchess]

2 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Shall we agree that a 1914 style crisis is the only way something like this could get started. Sure it is complicated but international crisis can be highly complex affairs as shown by the current real world conflict in the Middle East which, as all of us will agree is a real "Gordian Knot"

We currently have a game where the US commits ground forces into an unlikely and ill advised conflict. Exactly why does US/NATO  commit ground forces to Ukraine? Despite the obvious risks. Why would the US and NATO take such risks in real life? For war gaming purposes we assume that the political decisions have been made -  otherwise we can't have our war game!

You'll also note that World War I ended without landships driving through Berlin. Again, there is no conceivable reason for the US to invade mainland China, nor is it physically possible (there simply aren't enough ships to ferry/defend said forces, and they aren't built quickly.) Once again, any conflict that doesn't literally end the world would be settled in the air and at sea. You can say 1914 as much as you want but that doesn't change the terrain or political/economic nuances that exist in 2017. You can't just rely on a single article mentioning 1914 and a bunch of fiction novels.

As for your second question in the CMBS universe Ukraine has joined NATO and thus the Russian invasion triggers Article V. That is entirely more reasonable (especially at the time the story was developed pre-Crimean crisis).

Did you bother to read my previous post? Have you considered the Africa suggestion even remotely? Or do I need to write a fiction novel on it first.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

15 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

You'll also note that World War I ended without landships driving through Berlin. Again, there is no conceivable reason for the US to invade mainland China, nor is it physically possible (there simply aren't enough ships to ferry/defend said forces, and they aren't built quickly.) Once again, any conflict that doesn't literally end the world would be settled in the air and at sea. You can say 1914 as much as you want but that doesn't change the terrain or political/economic nuances that exist in 2017. You can't just rely on a single article mentioning 1914 and a bunch of fiction novels.

As for your second question in the CMBS universe Ukraine has joined NATO and thus the Russian invasion triggers Article V. That is entirely more reasonable (especially at the time the story was developed pre-Crimean crisis).

Did you bother to read my previous post? Have you considered the Africa suggestion even remotely? Or do I need to write a fiction novel on it first.

And this scenario does not necessarily have to end with M1A2 tanks in Tianaman Square. This does not preclude invasion of some parts of China.

Furthermore a 1914 style crisis is the only way a big war like this is going to break out.

Now I am only going to give you one warning. Keep this up and I am going to have to use the "ignore" button. I really do not want to have to do this but I am getting to the point where I will have no other option. 

As for the Africa option - yes, if you want to develop something on that please do so. I am sure you can think of something involving Djbouti 

http://www.chinaafricaproject.com/djibouti-welcomes-china-to-build-a-military-base-translation/

However I suggest it makes more sense to work that one in to the wider Pacific Rim Crisis over the South China Sea.I find it hard to envision a Far East Conflagration over Djbouti  but that would not preclude this issue from widening a war starting in thee South China Sea. Much the same as the India - Pakistan escalation and the Korea escalation we discussed earlier.

What I suggest we do is assume that the war starts in the South China Sea as I suggest and escalates with Korea and India-Pakistan. We work your Djbouti/\Africa idea into that. Fair enough?