US Army: long intersting "Economist" report

[Battlefront.com]

juan_gigante

I don't think that. The point is, we rely on them more than they rely on us.

No, that is exactly my point. They rely more on us than we do on them. At least for now. China can not afford to be cut off from the largest single consumer market. I'll say this again... numbers are meaningless unless you look deeper. The Chinese economy requires exports to function. Find me consistent commentary by economists that say otherwise and I'll stand corrected.

Now, this is not to say that the US economy would have a nice time with an embargo against China. It would not. Whole sectors of the economy would come to a crashing halt temporarily. However, the goods can be found elsewhere, though perhaps not in the variety and cheapness that they can be found in China. Don't forget that the US imports twice as much from Mexico and Canada as it does China and the rest comes from other places.

And the same thing is true of the U.S. China needs stuff from abroad?

Yes, quite true. As I have said over and over again, an embargo against China would hurt the US economy very badly. It just wouldn't cause a catastrophic collapse like I am sure would happen in China.

So do we. I ask - what is it that China needs that they can't make? Some numbers from Bigduke:

* 75 % of oil produced at home

* 100+ % of electricity needs produced at home

* 100+ % of natural gas needs produced at home

* $609.9 billion foreign currency reserves.

Again, the figures are meaningless unless you look at all the figures (like China's reliance on agricultural products) and what they mean. Note also that these figures are 2-3 years out of date and China increases its oil needs by 7.5% each year. Here is a nice quote from a good article:

Where will China get its oil?

China’s ability to provide for its own needs is limited by the fact that its proven oil reserves are small in relation to its consumption. At current production rates they are likely to last for less than two decades. Though during the 1970s and 1980s China was a net oil exporter, it became a net oil importer in 1993 and is growingly dependent on foreign oil. China currently imports 32% of its oil and is expected to double its need for imported oil between now and 2010. A report by the International Energy Agency predicted that by 2030, Chinese oil imports will equal imports by the U.S. today.

Feeding the Dragon

Interesting take on the tensions that will arise over the coming years as China and the US race to see who can suck up the last drop of oil. It ain't going to be pretty, that's for sure, since either one on its own is capable of exhausting the world's entire supply of oil in my lifetime.

As we've gone over, many other goods (steel, cement) the Chinese need are produced in nearby SE Asia countries that we couldn't stop from trading with China.

Who has proven that? China is a constant threat to its neighbors, most of which have long standing security arrangements with the US for exactly this reason. Vietnam has even had border wars with China in fairly recent years. To assume that a major Chinese move of aggression would keep things "business as usual" in the region is really hard to believe. Especially Japan. Same with Europe.

As poor as our relations are with Europe, on the whole, right now... an aggressive move by China would be extremely problematic for them. They are not yet as dependent on China as the US is, but instead significantly dependent on the US as a net importer of European goods. A war with China, even without explicit embargos, would mean the US economy would take a serious hit. European, Canadian, and Mexican based companies would be all too willing to help make up for the products not coming out of China or produced locally within the US. SE Asia, South Korea, and others would also be more than happy to have a bigger slice of the American market. There is therefore a strong incentive for them to pick up the slack, strong disincentive for them to back China (militarily as well as economically).

And let's not forget the damage the Chinese could do to the dollar. Most of those 609.9 billion is in dollars. If they wanted to unload their dollars, they could make the value plummet like a rock. Think that would be good for America?

I've said it a million times and I'll say it again... a large scale conflict with China would be extremely painful for the US. No questions about it. But for China it would be most likely fatal to the current economy and political regime. I've outlined many reasons and have seen nothing to dissuade me from those conclusions.

I'm not denying that ending of trade relations with China wouldn't hurt them. I just think that it would hurt us more.

I fundamentally disagree. China is in a very precarious spot right now. If a few things go wrong for it things could easily fall apart. Give China another 10 years and perhaps that won't be the case, but for the short term... I just don't see how it is possible for them to come off the better in a direct, all out confrontation with the US.

Steve

[juan_gigante]

Chinese oil demand is a very interesting issue, and one where there is a lot of information. Unfortunately, I was not impressed with your source. Statements like this tend to turn me off:

Originally written by Gal Luft:

China is also known to be a provider of WMD technologies to rouge states including North Korea, Syria, Libya and Sudan.

Personally, I felt the reporter was a little biased. Several things said there were true, though. China is getting lots of oil from Iran - and this is good for them if the balloon goes up. One thing I think we can all agree on - if it were possible to somehow cut all foreign oil from either China or the US, that country would not be happy. And barring US soldiers physically interdicting the oil transports or cutting pipelines, I don't think there is anyway we could convince Iran to stop selling to China. And China's reliance on Iranian oil is probably going to go up. But another key piece of the China-oil puzzle is Africa. China is also heavily reliant on African oil. If I may quote from the magazine Foreign Affairs:

Originally written by David Zweig:

In Africa, which already supplied 28.7 percent of China's total crude oil imports in 2004, Beijing has recently expanded its traditional relationships; in some countries, it has even begun to challenge the influence of the United States. In 2000, Beijing established the China-Africa Cooperation Forum (CACF) to promote trade and investment with 44 African countries. In 2003, Prime Minister Wen visited several oil-producing African states accompanied by Chinese oil executives, and President Hu toured Algeria, Egypt, and Gabon. China has been working closely with governments in the Gulf of Guinea, from Angola to Nigeria, as well as with the Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Libya, Niger, and Sudan.

Foreign Affairs: China's Global Hunt For Energy

I'm not sure if non-subscribers can see it, but it's worth a shot, I guess. Incidentally, it's a great magazine, and many important policy and theoretical ideas are revealed in its pages, and y'all should subscribe. Anyways, I'd count that as another oil source in China's pocket if the **** hits the fan. Not to mention Latin America and Venzuela (Who's Chavez going to pick when it comes down to it? If I may quote him speaking to a group of Chinese businessmen, "We have been producing and exporting oil for more than 100 years. But these have been 100 years of domination by the United States. Now we are free, and place this oil at the disposal of the great Chinese fatherland."). China's willingness to cooperate with "bad guy" states would be quite an advantage.

In fact, China is making inroads into traditional American spheres of influence. From the same article:

Originally written by David Zweig:

Through trade, Beijing has turned around its relations with Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Last year, Australian exports to China jumped by more than 20 percent, with a 41 percent increase in iron ore and a 72 percent increase in coal, and China is poised to displace the United States as Australia's number two trading partner. (By some accounts, it already has.) Australia has also agreed to export to China, starting in 2006, approximately $1 billion dollars worth of liquefied natural gas every year for 25 years. Such deals are enhancing China's soft power in Australia, perhaps to Washington's detriment. According to a poll taken last spring, 51 percent of Australians surveyed believe that a free-trade agreement with China would be good for Australia (only 34 percent think well of the existing U.S.-Australian free-trade pact). And 72 percent agreed with Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer when he said last year that Washington should not automatically assume that Australia would help it defend Taiwan against a Chinese military attack.

I'm seeing a trend beginning. I think the assumption that everyone will naturally be in America's corner when the cards are on the table is not one we can make so easily anymore. 5 years from now, it might be one you can't make at all.

Well, doing research on Chinese oil, I came across something interesting. Here's an article from the Economist.

Are You Being Served?

China's service sector is apparently by far the fastest growing part of China's economy, growing much faster than manufacturing. If I may quote a few bits:

As a result, services' share of the economy has jumped by nine percentage points, to 41%, compared with 46% for manufacturing and 13% for primary industries (mainly agriculture and mining).

Li Deshui, commissioner of China's National Bureau of Statistics, confirms that most of the newly unearthed GDP comes from three categories. The first is wholesale, retail and catering; the second, transport, storage, post and telecommunications. While postal and telecoms services are still state-controlled and thus readily measured, more than 1m small trucking and removal companies are not. The third activity is real estate, booming particularly in the coastal cities and increasingly inland too, leading to an influx of private money—not least from overseas speculators. Property development has, in turn, boosted demand for architects, decorators, do-it-yourself stores and other building services.

China's rapid economic growth is fuelling demand for accountants, lawyers, bankers and all manner of consultants, as Chinese companies expand and restructure. Specialists in marketing, advertising and public relations advise on the relatively new area of marketing products and developing brands. The new wealth has other consequences, too. China now has nearly 1m security guards. And it can offer its new rich everything from cosmetic surgeons to pet salons.

Meanwhile, a huge new market is opening up for private education—fuelled by the combination of a poor public system, the preoccupation of middle-class parents with giving their (often) only child the best chances, and demand from business. Chinese families spend more on education than on anything except housing—the market for courses, books and materials more than doubled from 2002 levels, to $90 billion in 2005. Richer households have also caused a tourism boom, which is still chiefly domestic, though more mainlanders are venturing overseas as visa restrictions are lifted. The World Travel & Tourism Council predicts that China's annual tourism market will more than triple to $300 billion within a decade.

A growing service sector is a sign, to me at least, that China is steadily growing less reliant on foreign markets.

I'm going to call it a night. Maybe I'll try to find some more stuff tomorrow morning. We'll see.

[Bigduke6]

Thanks to Juan Gigante for citing Foreign Affairs. It is difficult to imagine a more solid publication as a source, for the discussion we are having.

Steve,

Well, you haven't convinced me. I think your arguements are constructed far more on faith and denial, than on sober analysis of the facts. (As listed by the CIA fact book, anyway.) You and I are essentially arguing about the multiplier effect. You are saying take a little bit from the Chinese economy and that will produce a massive shock the China could not handle without dramatic consequences, among them inevitable defeat to the U.S. in an armed conflict.

I am saying a little bit taken from an economy as massive and flexible as the Chinese, would be just that: a little bit. I am not nearly as impressed with the multiplier effect as you are. I see the Chinese economy and society as a whole as being a lot more resilient that you do.

Therefore, I see the prospect of Chinese armed conflict with the U.S. as a lot more probable than you do, as what you think would deter the Chinese (economically and socially) I believe should hardly impress them.

Or to reduce things to the simplest terms, I think China could invade a neigbouring state by land (not Taiwan, that's by sea, a whole other kettle of li-chee nuts) and have a fair chance of dealing successfully with any U.S. countermeasure. You don't.

So we disagree, life goes on, ain't it great!

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

Lets call a hault on the US v europe bit, though I'd admit that at times as a continent we lack confidence, though I hope to god we don't try to prove we're confident by starting a stupid war.

Last time I looked the ratio of Labour costs between China and the US was near 20 to 1 ( average US $12.45 per hour., average China was about 70c per hour.) Now given that you have a labour force of 150m plus 6% unemployed, say 160m tops, and China has 760 million plus 20% close to a total of 900m, just what makes you think that on mobuilisation you can out produce them.

This isn't WW2, ypu can't recruit housewives can be recruited to build F-22's

To employ 160m people for 40 hrs a week ( 50 weeks a year) at £10 an hour, costs $3,2 trillion, about 25% of the US economy.

To employ 900m Chinese for the same time at $1 an hour ( note while US wages fall Chinese rise, so I am skewing it in Americas favour) cost $1.8trillion, about 20% of the chinese economy.

However if we assume equal productivity ( iam not sure of the comparative levels) then with 20% of it's economy spent on wages it should with five times as many workers produce five times the goods,

Plus look at what they start with in terms of productive capacity, of there 760m workforce, 50% are in agriculture and 29% in services, so they have even without the 20% unemployed a loyt of low skilled people that are underutilised and who can be put to work.

By contrast 76% of the US 150m are in services. Now you can clear out all the McDonalds and Wendies for troops and cheap labour, but what about all those Doctors and Lawyers ( Oh and software and game designers), what happens when they all start working for peanuts and stop paying high taxes.

Now again I am not kicking America but it's back to experience, as far as I know no one has ever tried to mobilise a modern service economy, ( though in WW2 lots of white collar Americans did enlist or were drafted), where as what China would be doing has been done in the past, and indeed China has done it.

True like Germany v Russia, the US would have a more educated workforce, who with a learning culture could probably adapt quicker, but much of what they would need to do would produce less value than what they do now.

I am not sure the modern US economy could sustain mobilisation in that traditional sense, but I am pretty sure the Chinese can as in a way that's what they have been doing for the last decade or so.

Peter.

[juan_gigante]

Bigduke6 - Foreign Affairs has a special web section on the end of the Hong Kong round of the Doha trade talks. 6 articles, by guys like Jagdish Bhagwati. I think it's open to the public, and it's very good. Man, I love that magazine. Between Foreign Affairs and the Economist, I don't really need to read a newspaper anymore!

Peter - I do disagree with you on a few points.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

However if we assume equal productivity ( iam not sure of the comparative levels) then with 20% of it's economy spent on wages it should with five times as many workers produce five times the goods,

Plus look at what they start with in terms of productive capacity, of there 760m workforce, 50% are in agriculture and 29% in services, so they have even without the 20% unemployed a loyt of low skilled people that are underutilised and who can be put to work.

First, we can't assume equal productivity, and probably won't be able to for a long time. American workers are so much more productive than Chinese workers, I think that after correcting for productivity, those low Chinese wages aren't quite as low compared to American ones after all.

And besides, those 50% of workers in agriculture and the 20% unemployed? No way China could mobilize them just like that. They don't have the infrastructure. The government is trying like mad to get people from rural areas to the cities to work on services and industry, but it is a very slow and long process. There literally aren't enough seats in the factories for all those people to sit in, much less places for them to sleep. No, you can't consider the enormous rural population to be much of an asset if a trade war happens.

[Peter Cairns]

juan_gigante

Had alook at the web site for the US department of Labour, it gives comparative labour productivity figures for countries from 1950 up to 2004 Unfortunately the 14 countries it gives figures for don't include China.

Some of the Figures are

USA 189

Canada 145

S Korea 270

UK 142

Germany 140

Taiwan 174

France 150

Japan 143

Australia 164

The US scores high, some 30% above Germany ( though reunification has pulled them down), but it's still 40% behind South Korea.

I also found this which is quite interesting in terms of the Freindly invasion scenario.

"The pattern of trade mentioned above, in which China runs trade surpluses with the United States and to a lesser extent the European Union while running trade deficits with its Asian neighbors, stems also from two additional factors. First, firms based in other Asian countries have undertaken the vast majority of foreign direct investment in China. Contrary to the common impression here, United States and European firms are relatively minor investors in China. Asian firms, notably those from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan account for about 70 percent of China's inward foreign direct investment. Firms based in these countries tend to source their high valued added parts and components for their China operations from their home countries. As a result China, for example, last year ran a massive trade deficit of more than $25 billion in its trade with Taiwan. Two-thirds of China's imports from Taiwan last year consisted not of finished goods but of parts and components that subsequently were assembled in factories owned by Taiwan firms. The resulting final goods were exported into the global market, predominantly to the United States and Europe."

This could indicate not only that Taiwan might over time swing towards mainland China, but also that nations like Korea, and Japan might be extremely reluctant to side with the US as conflict with China could cost them billions.

However it also highlights a lack of real depth and a dependence on raw materials and semi finished goods from other asia countries.

Peter.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

This could indicate not only that Taiwan might over time swing towards mainland China, but also that nations like Korea, and Japan might be extremely reluctant to side with the US as conflict with China could cost them billions.

Peter.

They would be stupid not to side with the United States in a shooting war. China would lose so many mandatory assets for war the first few weeks, the only assets they would have left would be about as functional as Conscripts.

[Peter Cairns]

Abbott,

the Scenarios I put forward is that Taiwan goes over to China, and the US backs the faction that wants to reverse it, so they go over before the shooting war starts. Although it could be a civil war with the Chinese intervening before the US or similtaniously.

Most of the scenarios(quite rightly historically) see the Chinese trying to cross the straits with Taiwan opposing it, and like everyone else i see that as a non starter.

What I was looking to create was a US v China battle on Taiwan ( roughly 200miles by 50miles), with nthe US having to invade, to even up the odds.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

I think your arguements are constructed far more on faith and denial, than on sober analysis of the facts

I could say the exact same thing to you. And that is your faith is the US will always lose when it is challenged and any facts to the contrary should be dismissed instead of examined.

Look, I've clearly demonstrated that I have no overconfidence that the American "way of life" is perfect or untouchable. In fact, I have made a straight forward, factual, rational case for how easily the US economy would collapse if certain events happened. I noticed no objections by you to this thesis. Yet when I try to apply the same rational logic to China, I'm labeled as some sort of blind patriot who is beyond rationalization. Hmmm... so who is the pot calling the kettle black?

You and I are essentially arguing about the multiplier effect. You are saying take a little bit from the Chinese economy and that will produce a massive shock the China could not handle without dramatic consequences, among them inevitable defeat to the U.S. in an armed conflict.

Yes, because the multiplier effect is sound, rational, and above all something that has caused lots and lots of powerful entities to fall in the past. Look at how quickly the Soviet Union crumbled and fell apart after similar events in Eastern Europe. All that power, all that history of control... gone in a what amounts to a wink of an eye. The reasons for the fall were all there, all that was needed was the catalyst and favorable conditions. Why is China immune from all of this? You seem to think that there is nothing wrong in the Chinese economy, government, or society. That things are just ducky over there and therefore it is immune to pretty much everything. I don't find that to be a very credible position considering all the articles floating around that speak about exactly the opposite.

I am saying a little bit taken from an economy as massive and flexible as the Chinese, would be just that: a little bit. I am not nearly as impressed with the multiplier effect as you are. I see the Chinese economy and society as a whole as being a lot more resilient that you do.

Here is the thing that I'm puzzled about. I've looked at those superficial, and basically meaningless statistics, and tried to put them in to real world context. I made an attempt to predict how things would affect this or that and what chain of events would follow. You have not refuted my logic, you've simply flat out rejected it without any similar counter argument. You've not shown how it is that China's economy could survive significant and sudden shortfalls of critical things, you have not shown how its oppressive government would handle another major disruption like in 1989, you have not shown how the Chinese military would be able to defend itself against the sort of attacks LtCol West outlined. Instead, you've just waived your hand and dismissed my position as the product of nationalist myopia. I'm afraid that you need to look more closely at your motivations and conclusions than I do mine.

Steve

[ January 18, 2006, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

General comments...

Yes, as I have already pointed out China is gaining ground on the US in many, many ways. Economics is just one, politics is yet another. As one article I read put it, the US must at least pay lip service to its stance on human rights, WMDs, nukes, etc. This has complicated, if not precluded, dealing with certain states or dealing with them in a favorable way. China, on the other hand, has no such problems since it only cares about what it gets out of the deal, not who the deal is with. Therefore, China has a competitive edge over the US in certain ways.

Some articles I've read call the Chinese move "seeds" in that they don't amount to much now, but can over time produce great things. Since oil is a limited commodity, these seeds and lack of moral interference, will likely make a huge difference in the years to come. Not yet, but certainly down the road.

The US was at its strongest when it was actively protecting large chunks of the globe from the USSR. China, throughout most of this time period, was rather quiet and hasn't made too many powerful enemies. It now trades, and trades strongly, with most of the world. This was not the case with the USSR, making a confrontation between the West and the USSR "easier" to handle. What's more, many of the countries that were in the US sphere of influence were there simply because US Dollars meant something while Soviet Credits meant very little. China is using US Dollars to buy its favors, which means the US has lost its edge there too since things are on even ground.

Militarily, China is still lagging behind the US. It is trying desperately to catch up, though. The First Gulf War was a major wakeup call to China, as well as Russia, that the old Soviet technology and military thinking that both of these nations were based on had to be completely overhauled. China has obviously watched the last 3 years of US conflicts to see what else it must learn. Based on all of this China is building a theoretical rival to US military power. However, it is still quite new and unproven in combat. More importantly, it is completely deficient in several key areas (naval and air power). So even if their land forces are up to the task, they might still have significant challenges to overcome before they can be comfortable about challenging the US to an open conventional conflict.

For example, the last few posts talk about all the inroads that China has been making to offset its rapidly increasing dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, almost all of this has to be shipped over the open seas. And who controls these seas? The US Navy and Air Force (at least in certain regions). If there was an outright conflict, do you really think the US would allow Venezuelan oil tankers to dock in Chinese ports? China is not in a position to rectify this vulnerability. So in an outright conflict, much of their future foreign oil would stop flowing rather quickly and fairly easily (tankers aren't hard to spot!).

Obviously, such a conflict would spawn all sorts of smaller conflicts. For example, if the US Navy turned away/sank a Venezuelan oil tanker trying to run the blockade, I am sure oil shipments to the US from Venezuela would run into some "difficulties". I don't think many countries could afford to in turn embargo the US, since that would mean almost no income from them due to losing both of the largest markets (the US one by choice, the Chinese one by force). I predict a lot of angry faces in the UN, higher prices for US consumers, but by and large business as usual with the US. Especially if Europe was also in on the US side, which is entirely possible (depending on the circumstances).

However, with each passing year things become less clear. It is clear that the US is in a state of decline. The fumblings of recent years in the arena of foreign affairs has only hastened a process that started soon after the USSR collapsed. On the other hand, China is in ascension. It has many lingering, and serious, problems that need to be overcome, but it would seem that the Chinese leadership is doing a better job at steering their ship than the US is in steering its own. The main problem is that they are both steering for the same destination, which means there is a chance they will crash into each other, by chance or by deliberate action.

Personally, I think in 20 years the entire world will look vastly different than it does now. With any luck it won't be horrid, but I don't have much faith in the leaders of any of the world's nations to believe that. Instead I see all nations pursuing their selfish paths of self enrichment and fulfillment as they have since tribes were first formed. I don't see any reason to hope that there will suddenly be enlightenment where world leaders will finally see that something has to give eventually, and giving up a little bit now will save wholesale destruction later on. Later being well within the lifetime of most of us reading this Forum.

Who will win this eventual, and inevitable, clash between China and the US? Nobody. The entire world will likely suffer even if it is just the US and China slugging away (which is highly unlikely). And whomever survives this clash will likely pick up right where they left off before the calamity. That's what thousands of years of recorded Human history leads me to predict. Worst of all, I'm usually an optimist

Just so you guys know, I'm still planning on making lots of CM games before Armageddon, so no worries there! I still put into my 401K plan and I still pay my taxes. However, I'll be off the grid soon and after I rip out my oil furnace tank I a figure I can store about 20,000 rounds of ammo. Let's just say I like to cover my bases

Steve

[juan_gigante]

I'll agree with pretty much all the "General Comments". The point about Chinese reliance on sea routes is especially interesting, and is the reason why the Chinese are rapidly upgrading their navy from a coastal defense force to a full high-seas power-projection force.

The biggest thing I've taken away from all this talk about China - I think maybe I should start taking classes in Chinese. Because in 20-30 years, when I'm a full-on adult (and, if all goes to plan, running for the U.S. Senate ), that might be a handy thing to know.

[Battlefront.com]

Well, if you are in the Senate in 20 years speaking Chinese will make your term more profitable, what with all the payoffs and what not

The problem with China's rapid military build up, as I see it, is their lack of practical experience. The Soviet military was born out of revolution, just as China's was. However, the Soviets very soon there after engaged in many wars of aggression, then the Great Patriotic War. After that dozens of proxy wars against the US and Europe, a couple of direct actions in Europe, and of course Afghanistan. Throughout this time they kept a huge military presence in a high state of readiness.

China has no such long standing record. It has never fought large air wars, never had a navy worth speaking of, not engaged a significant foe since the US/UN forces in Korea, and largely let their armed forces stagnate for decades. Even in Korea their military experience was somewhat limited both in terms of duration and in terms of tactical employment. Unlike the Soviets, China has also not been a major player in proxy wars and military advising roles.

Now, I am not saying that all this means the Chinese are unschooled in the methods of war, just that they are embarking on a massive program without significant, or recent, first hand experience. I would suggest that it is possible that they've made some subtle, though fundamental errors, that might make their theoretical force weaker in reality than it is on paper. Happens all the time even with thoroughly experienced militaries (such as Iraq is showing the US), so why should they be an exception and get everything right?

Anyway, just more food for thought

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

One more thing Steve,

Big Duke didn't say the Chinese won, He said the Chinese believe that they one, which is a different (and in the context of attitudes to a future conflict), thing entirely.

LtCol West,

did some Checking, by my reckoning even if you could use it Okinawa is 400miles each way from Northern Taiwan, and mainland Japan and Korea about a 2,000mile round trip.

The Straits of Taiwan are only 90 miles wide and 100 fathoms deep. Which given that fast airborne laser depth finding can already operate to 150 fathoms would make it a Killing ground for something the size of a Los Angeles.

Chinese coastal and land based cruise including New Russain SS-N-22's can cover that gap from one side let alone from each.

To close the gap and use Subs, the US would need to have airsuperiority over a 500mile strip and that means almost certainly bringing Carriers in to range of shore based defences.

The whole defence of Taiwan scenario that the US is geared to assumes that it's the Chinese doing the invading. Oh and my count of US amphibious forces, comes out at a maximum of 40,000 that they can put ashore if they use everything.

True the US can quickly achieve local superiority as the Chinese have to cover the whole coast while the US can concentrate on their choosen beachhead, but once ashore that beachhead is incredibly vulnerable to long range MLRS.

If the US concentrates too much it's fish in a barrel, if it spreads to thin, it loses local superiority.

oh and I found this as well,

A-100 10-tube 300 mm Multiple Rocket Launcher

The A-100 is developed by China National Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC) and CASA 1st Academy. The whole system includes 12-tube launch vehicles, reloading vehicles, and command & control vehicles, all of which are mounted on the WS-2400 8X8 wheeled chassis.

The strong Russian style WS-2400 wheeled chassis is also used on the DF-11 (M-11) surface-to-surface ballistic missile system.

The Command & Control vehicles is fitted with computerised fire-control and GPS. All 12 rockets can be fired out in 60 seconds, and it can be reloaded in 20 minutes. The rocket can deliver the 200 kg anti-armour or anti-personnel blasting warhead to a range of 50~100 km.

The CPMIEC is also developing a variety of new 300 mm rockets with an enhanced fire range of 70~180 km. It can be fired by the A-100 system without any modification.

Peter.

China cannot counter these:

TLAM

Which are alot more accurate against anything the Chinese have, or choose to reveal once they launch anything.

And they do not have these:

KH-11

Which would detect any kind of conventional military asset, especially if it was operational.

And they cannot counter these:

B-2

The Chinese defense network would be picked apart like an onion so that the 7th Fleet could get in position to dominate the Strait. The 7th Fleet would probably never enter the Strait, and probably operated on the far side of Taiwan anyways.

The US Navy does not have the amphib assets to land 40K. The amphib assault wave would probably be a Marine division minus. A airborne assault could also be conducted, but that would be very dicey in my opinion.

Once the amphib assault secured a port and an airfield, then the Marine and Army maritime pre-positioned ships would come in with another division's worth of Marine gear and 2-3 Army mech brigades worth of gear. The Styrker brigades could be flown in and, in about 45 days, heavy Army divisions would show up, like 3rd and 4th ID or 1st Cavalry.

Time would also be on the US's side.

And all of this is pure military on military point of view. Throw in politics and political will to act and who knows what would happen. It could turn into a great "crusade" or Taiwan just could be written off from the very start.

I may sound as an over-confident US Marine, but I have seen first hand what a fraction of the US military can do. A full focused offensive effort by the US military has not been seen since WW2. And I am not talking about using nuclear weapons.

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

Hard to lay this thing to rest, huh? I'll try and keep this as compact as possible. In case you think I'm getting personally, honestly I'm not, when I called your position faith-based I tried to make clear that was my view, not a hard varnished fact.

To respond to your points:

1. I don't think the U.S. will inevitably lose in all cases. Note that I think the Taiwan scenario is a win proposition for the U.S. The crux of my arguement is that there are some possible scenarios where U.S. advantages are limited enough, and Chinese advantages large enough, to make a U.S. win really improbable. There's no reason for you to believe me on this, but my arguements are not being driven by a dislike of the U.S. (I hope). I just am trying to make a calculation, looking at the facts as honestly as I can.

2. I say China should be relatively impervious to U.S. economic counters, and you say it's highly vulnerable. I base my claim not, as you assert, on faith, but on data about the Chinese economy published by the CIA; plus a look at a map of Asia.

Energy is a classic target for such a strategy. According to the CIA the Chinese are close to energy self-sufficient right now. Further, the world's second-largest souce of energy reserves - Russia - is right next to to China and far from the reach of the U.S. navy. Seeing as the former Soviet Union contains, for practical purposes, every strategic resource needed by the Chinese economy, and China is right next to the former Soviet Union, I deduce the U.S. would have difficulty interfering with that income stream in a major way.

3. The multiplier effect does not guarantee a bullet to the cerebral cortex of an economy. It is certainly a sound economic principle, but simply giving a giant economy a dollar, or taking it away, and then expecting billions of dollars of economic effect down the line is naturally absurd. The input needs to be big enough, in proportion to the economy, to give an effect, be that positive or negative.

I think Chinese foreign currency reserves, relative energy self-sufficiency, deep labor force, and probably viable natural resource providers nearby make the Chinese economy a lot more resilient than you are giving it credit for. As other posters have noted, there are more than a few misconceptions on what makes China's economy go, including:

*It is not export dependant, most economic activity is domestic, not foreign-economy related.

*It is not dependant on the U.S., removal of the U.S. market would deny the Chinese economy only a fraction of its total export income.

*It is not particularly dependant on a single resource; in fact its import sources are pretty diversified.

Given that, I don't see how the U.S. alone could make the Chinese economy do much more than hiccup a bit. If the Europeans, China's wealthier neighbors, and the Middle East got on board, then you would have a threat. But I don't see those players logically taking the U.S. side in a U.S.-China conflict: neutrality is a far more rational strategy, from an economic point of view.

I think you use of East Europe as an example of the effectiveness of the multiplier effect is inexact, IMO you are comparing apples to oranges. If you are interested in my logic on this I'll write the essay. LOL.

Let's not forget the price of fossil fuels has more than doubled, and on spot markets close to tripled, in the last three years. That also goes for the Chinese economy. That's a pretty serious hit. The Chinese economy handled that hit how? By continuing to grow at the same rate as before, that's how. I call that proof of resiliency.

You seem to think that there is nothing wrong in the Chinese economy, government, or society. That things are just ducky over there and therefore it is immune to pretty much everything. I don't find that to be a very credible position considering all the articles floating around that speak about exactly the opposite.

No, not so. I am saying that in the specific case of a limited Chinese-U.S. conflict on the Asian continent, China has lots of useful cards in its hand, quite possibly more than the U.S. I have made clear I the cards deal out differently if one speaks of Taiwan, or if one speaks of an all-out war.

Remember, my participation this long discussion began with my objection to the assertion "The U.S. will always win." I think there are plenty of quite possible cases where the U.S. would not inevitably win a war in the future, and I cited a land conflict with China as one of the most obvious. That is a long way from arguing China would prevail against the U.S. in all cases and in all places. That is another absolute, and I have never asserted that.

You've not shown how it is that China's economy could survive significant and sudden shortfalls of critical things, you have not shown how its oppressive government would handle another major disruption like in 1989, you have not shown how the Chinese military would be able to defend itself against the sort of attacks LtCol West outlined.

On the economy, see above. I've done it, just not to your satisfaction. It all goes down to the unaswerable question of how much leverage the U.S. has over the Chinese economy. You and I differ in our interpetations of the data, or more exactly the multiplier effect. I could accuse you of failing to name a strategic resource that the U.S. could deny to China in a meaningful quantity, but it would amount to the same thing: Our definitions on U.S. economic leverage, and its effects, differ fundamentally.

On the effect of the effects of a U.S. conflict on Chinese society, I have tried to argue Chinese patriotism, lower living standards, and authoritarian government would marginalize the social fall-out achievable by the U.S. I think the Chinese society can handle the human and material losses associated with a limited war against the U.S. Your counter-arguement is based, again, on your interpetation of the multiplier effect. Dead end.

On China defending itself against LTC West's onslaught, I believe I have made clear fighting for Taiwan is not a realistic Chinese option now; they lack the ability to dominate the sea and air around the island. But I hope I also have made clear, Taiwan is not the same as all the states with land borders on China.

Model me this: China invades Burma. The U.S. wants to stop them militarily. How do they do it?

I'll end this by repeating that I am not trying to accuse you of being a bad guy, or a rabid nationalist, or anything of the sort. I just see your arguement as fundamentally flawed. I believe I have demonstrated the weaknesses of your arguement, and I am happy to live with your disagreement with that.

[Tarquelne]

China ... never had a navy worth speaking of

Huh. What about from 1405-1436? Shows what you know...

[Peter Cairns]

LtCol West,

China doesn't have TLAM, but the US has only 2,000 in the world, and if it fired 50% and between dumies, missfires, close hits, and mobile units moving, it got a 50% hit rate, that wounded be enough.

China is not Iraq, destroying it's C3 network particularly the undated fibre optics one will take massively more resources than the US used in GW1 or OIF, and both of those hugely depleted US inventories.

After the cruise had done it's work the rest was done primarily by F-16's F-15's and F-18's with the USAF doing most. Problem is you just can't do that when you need to make a 2,000 mile round trip from Korea, much of it with SAM range of the chinese coast, ( and if the koreans let you).

Even the B-2 which is an awsome aircraft is only available in very limited numbers. The problem with the US trying to destroy Chinese defences on the East of the Straits of Taiwan, is that effectively the US can only deploy a fraction of it's offensive capability while China can deploy most of it's. As I have said repeatedly, the current US strategy works because the wargames start with the US defending a friendly Taiwan, not trying to take it back after it has welcomed them in.

Given the depth and narrowness of the Straits and with Chinese forces on both sides, anything trying to attack and close the straits would probably have to either cross Taiwan itself, or lauch carrier strikes from the North East or South East of Taiwan.

In the same way any Marine Assault would probably have to be on the East coast, and given that Taiwan is only 200miles long, Chinese MLRS's with a 100 mile range, could cover huge lengths of coastline from dispersed mobile site.

Given how hard it was to hunt down Scuds, tracking down hidden launchers in terrain line Taiwans would be alot harder.

They don't have Big birds, but they do have this.

"H-1 Military Communications Satellite

NAME:

Manufacturer Designation: Feng Huo-1 (FH-1)

Commercial Name: Zhongxing-22 (ChinaSat-22)

PROGRAMME

The Feng Huo-1 (FH-1) is the first of several dedicated military communications satellites for China's first integrated command, control, communications, computer and intelligence (C4I) system. Using a commercial name Zhongxing-22 (ChinaSat 22) as a camouflage, the first satellite FH-1 was launched in January 2000 from Xichang Satellite Launch Centre by a CZ-3A launch vehicle.

Little is known about the technical details of the satellite. The No.1 satellite was probably an experimental design used to test its performance. Unknown number of following operational satellites can be expected to be launched in the next few years.

The mobile satellite communications ground station in service with the PLA

Once fully deployed, the FH series satellite will establish a space-based military tactical communication networks to support Chinese military forces’ operations in China mainland and its peripheral areas. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been using the DFH series comsat as a part of its national C4I systems for over a decade, but the FH series will provide new capabilities, which will allow commanders to communicate with and share data with all forces under joint command at theatre level."

Oh and this is interesting too

"Given that China had not previously flown a major ELINT satellite, this was an enormous leap in Chinese military surveillance from space. Each orbital module remains in space as long as eight months after the other modules return to earth. That means the orbital modules of the Shenzhou spacecraft have been scanning the earth 90% of the time, day in and day out, since Shenzhou 3 was launched in March 2002. Data is dumped in ten-minute bursts when the spacecraft pass over Miyun, near Beijing. These missions would have given China's equivalent to the American National Security Agency an excellent introduction into capabilities and problems in flying an operational ELINT satellite over a variety of targets and seasons of the year. The main objective, as was the case for low-altitude Soviet systems, would be to keep track of the US Navy, particularly carrier groups. Observations by Shenzhou 4 during the Iraq War would have been an intelligence windfall for the Chinese."

"The second military payload flown aboard Shenzhou is an imaging reconnaissance package. This consisted of two cameras with an aperture of 500 - 600 mm. One is mounted in the equipment package at the nose of the spacecraft, the other below it at what had been earlier thought to be the porthole above the orbital module's main hatch. The use of two differing cameras indicates a hyper-spectral, multi-resolution, combination mapping/close-look system. As reported in Space Daily last March, Zhang Houying of the Chinese Academy of Sciences gave the ground resolution of the close-look CCD camera as 1.6 m."

IN GW1 the US used it's airpower for 40days ( very biblical I always thought) to perpare for the invasion. To retake Taiwan it would have to destroy a far more capable airforce and airdefence system, with probably less than half the airpower, most of it carrier based.

Peter

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I tend to take issue in general with the Chinese military expansion theory.

Looking at numbers if anything there is contraction. What I see lots of evidence of is modernisation. The production rates for the likes of the J-1o ( a sort of Chinese Eurofighter) are still low, but there is no indication that they will ever be ramped up to replace the numbers of Chinese built Mig-17's that they are replacing.

There is a lot of investment in C3 and particularly a move to modern networked dispersable communications, but that is because it is far more effective and economical than big costly fixed instalations.

(As an aside, one of the problems I have with the UK's talk about effects based warfare, where they justify fewer aircraft because one Eurofighter with a Scalp can take out a command centre where it would have taken four Tornados at low level, is that it assumes that the enemy will be static and still be dependant on big fixed instalations.

My view is that increasingly a command centre will be four guys with lap tops in the back of a Landcruiser, andd that in fact the number of C3 targets is set to greatly increase, with each modile and harder to find and hit. This suggests that if anything we will need more aircraft not fewer (though UAV's will play a big part).)

In terms of the Navy there is clear growth, but it is nothing like the Soviet union embarked on post Cuba, and again is characterised more by modernisation and a traditional incremental approach. The New SSN's and SSk's are clearly far more capable than the old soviet ones, but the programme is still cautious and modest.

I think in general what we are seeing is modernisation in line with the growth in size and technical capability of the Chinese economy, rather than a military build up. In physical terms it may amount to the same thing, a far more capable opponent, but I think it is wrong to automatically interpret that as belegerance or aggression, as some people do.

I've always thought that the Chinses had the worlds most effective nuclear deterrent, because while the US and Ussr got in to a race piling Nuke on Nuke ( ultimately contributing to the collapse of the Soviet Union), the Chinese stopped when they thought they had enough to cost the US or the USSR, more than it would be prepared to pay. In the case of the US that was enough medium range to waste Korea, Japan and Taiwan, and enough long range to take out the major cities of the west coast.

From a most bang for our bucks, that was far smarter than what we did in the UK spending billions of four Trident2 capable subs.

Peter.

[Bigduke6]

All this talk of invading Taiwan has got me curious, so I did some digging around. Check out chapter 8 in the following:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1999/chinese.htm

And pretty much any part of the following:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/pla_and_china_transition.pdf

I dunno guys. The more I read about the Chinese the more impressed I get. Before I read the articles, I was sure the U.S. Navy and Air Force could establish air superiority over the straits of Taiwan, end of story. Now I ain't so sure.

Here's my shorthand version:

China is building one of the most dense, and advanced, air defense systems in the world opposite Taiwan, including Russian S-300 systems which for practical purposes even the Americans can't jam. Some of their missiles can knock down planes almost out to the Phillipines, it seems like.

Anti-stealth technology is a huge priority (suprise), and according to some reports they think they can find stealth aircraft using Russian gear that effectively sweeps television frequencies and detects a plane's disturbance of them. They are fielding phased-array radars which, I read, means that when they run their radars the signature is less, meaning the U.S. aircraft carrying anti-radar missiles have to get closer, meaning entering the Chinese coastal ADA belt. It would really suck to be the U.S. and be denied stand-off. Symetrical warfare, ooh, how 20th century, ew!

As nearly as I can figure out the Chinese make nautical strike cruise missiles that can reach out to 82 sea miles, and if they import them from Russia, the distance could extend to about 150 sea miles. The Chinese military-industrial complex is weak, however, one of the few things they are good at is guided missiles. Not as accurate as U.S., of course, it's assumed the Chinese use GPS as their basic guidance data source. But still, they are making these things themselves.

Their top of the line aircraft is Su-30 which is superior to everything that flies except F-18 maybe, and F-22. They also have a lot of Su-27s which are ok at air superiority but crummy at ground support. The top-of-the-line indigidous aircraft is roughly comperable to an F-16.

The Chinese had 30,000 airborne troop ready for combat as of 2000, and according to some reports that number went to 70,000 in 2005. God only knows how many Marines they have.

In other places I read the Chinese attitude on defeating U.S. air strikes is just to bury their C3 nodes very deep, and use wire communications. Yes they do have recon sattelites, with downlinks and everything.

There were lots of references to discussions in the Chinese military press about how Iraq could have stopped the Americans in GWII if they had fought intelligently. (I'm not saying I think that's the case, I'm saying the Chinese military thinkers believe that's the case.)

I'm not trying to build the Chinese up as the next Wehrmacht, they're still pretty Soviet when it comes to manufacturing and fielding new equipment. The joke about the J-10 is that the Chinese spent 20 years reverse-engineering an aircraft, only in 2005 to put into service a plane that would have been state-of-the-art in 1985.

But this ain't a force any one can take with one hand tied behind their back. The Chinese are a first-class opponent. If I was a U.S. planner, I bet I would prefer trying to establish air/sea superiority over Britain, than trying to do the same thing over Taiwan.

Well, maybe not, but the day really seems to be coming. :eek:

LTC West is right, this would be an incredible wargame. And here we are getting ready to fight over Syria, pah!

[ January 19, 2006, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Peter Cairns]

Bigduke,

I still think the US has an advantage, which is why I like the Chinese in Taiwan, US backs the rebels option.

Part of that could be "blue" on "Blue" as part of a Taiwanese civil war, which would see you facing an opponent of equal ability with the same equipment. Another option is that we could have pre US arrival scenarios with Chinese made T-90's v Taiwanese M60A3's, which is a far better match than M1A2's v T-55's.

Oh and if it's in five or so years time we get to see the new Chinese attack helicopter, ( More Mangusta than Tiger but still enough to cause a US ground commander some problems).

Peter.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

LtCol West,

China doesn't have TLAM, but the US has only 2,000 in the world, and if it fired 50% and between dumies, missfires, close hits, and mobile units moving, it got a 50% hit rate, that wounded be enough.

China is not Iraq, destroying it's C3 network particularly the undated fibre optics one will take massively more resources than the US used in GW1 or OIF, and both of those hugely depleted US inventories.

After the cruise had done it's work the rest was done primarily by F-16's F-15's and F-18's with the USAF doing most. Problem is you just can't do that when you need to make a 2,000 mile round trip from Korea, much of it with SAM range of the chinese coast, ( and if the koreans let you).

Even the B-2 which is an awsome aircraft is only available in very limited numbers. The problem with the US trying to destroy Chinese defences on the East of the Straits of Taiwan, is that effectively the US can only deploy a fraction of it's offensive capability while China can deploy most of it's. As I have said repeatedly, the current US strategy works because the wargames start with the US defending a friendly Taiwan, not trying to take it back after it has welcomed them in.

Given the depth and narrowness of the Straits and with Chinese forces on both sides, anything trying to attack and close the straits would probably have to either cross Taiwan itself, or lauch carrier strikes from the North East or South East of Taiwan.

In the same way any Marine Assault would probably have to be on the East coast, and given that Taiwan is only 200miles long, Chinese MLRS's with a 100 mile range, could cover huge lengths of coastline from dispersed mobile site.

Given how hard it was to hunt down Scuds, tracking down hidden launchers in terrain line Taiwans would be alot harder.

They don't have Big birds, but they do have this.

"H-1 Military Communications Satellite

NAME:

Manufacturer Designation: Feng Huo-1 (FH-1)

Commercial Name: Zhongxing-22 (ChinaSat-22)

PROGRAMME

The Feng Huo-1 (FH-1) is the first of several dedicated military communications satellites for China's first integrated command, control, communications, computer and intelligence (C4I) system. Using a commercial name Zhongxing-22 (ChinaSat 22) as a camouflage, the first satellite FH-1 was launched in January 2000 from Xichang Satellite Launch Centre by a CZ-3A launch vehicle.

Little is known about the technical details of the satellite. The No.1 satellite was probably an experimental design used to test its performance. Unknown number of following operational satellites can be expected to be launched in the next few years.

The mobile satellite communications ground station in service with the PLA

Once fully deployed, the FH series satellite will establish a space-based military tactical communication networks to support Chinese military forces’ operations in China mainland and its peripheral areas. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been using the DFH series comsat as a part of its national C4I systems for over a decade, but the FH series will provide new capabilities, which will allow commanders to communicate with and share data with all forces under joint command at theatre level."

Oh and this is interesting too

"Given that China had not previously flown a major ELINT satellite, this was an enormous leap in Chinese military surveillance from space. Each orbital module remains in space as long as eight months after the other modules return to earth. That means the orbital modules of the Shenzhou spacecraft have been scanning the earth 90% of the time, day in and day out, since Shenzhou 3 was launched in March 2002. Data is dumped in ten-minute bursts when the spacecraft pass over Miyun, near Beijing. These missions would have given China's equivalent to the American National Security Agency an excellent introduction into capabilities and problems in flying an operational ELINT satellite over a variety of targets and seasons of the year. The main objective, as was the case for low-altitude Soviet systems, would be to keep track of the US Navy, particularly carrier groups. Observations by Shenzhou 4 during the Iraq War would have been an intelligence windfall for the Chinese."

"The second military payload flown aboard Shenzhou is an imaging reconnaissance package. This consisted of two cameras with an aperture of 500 - 600 mm. One is mounted in the equipment package at the nose of the spacecraft, the other below it at what had been earlier thought to be the porthole above the orbital module's main hatch. The use of two differing cameras indicates a hyper-spectral, multi-resolution, combination mapping/close-look system. As reported in Space Daily last March, Zhang Houying of the Chinese Academy of Sciences gave the ground resolution of the close-look CCD camera as 1.6 m."

IN GW1 the US used it's airpower for 40days ( very biblical I always thought) to perpare for the invasion. To retake Taiwan it would have to destroy a far more capable airforce and airdefence system, with probably less than half the airpower, most of it carrier based.

Peter

I am not saying fighting China over Taiwan would be easy, and nearly as easy as invading Iraq and Afghansistan. But the Chinese aircraft and weapons, though much superior to anything Iraq had, still are only as good as the radar and C2 systems directing them. And Soviet/Russian/Chinese designed rocket and missle systems have never really been known for thier accuracy and precision. The US would have to carefully take the Chinese air defense network apart, but that will not be impossible. And to fire a missle or rocket across the Strait at a ship or air target, then a radar has to be lit up. And the carrier battle groups would be operating just outside of the threat envelopes, providing sustained air ops while the Airforce birds were ingressing or egressing from targets.

Without a politcal decision to stop, the US military would destroy the Chinese invasion forces and take back Taiwan and China could not stop it. Of course, Taiwan would be pretty much leveled.

War in Burma or another place would be much more difficult. But the Chinese onslaught could only go so far. Initial forces, such as US Army airborne and light infantry forces, Marines, and Stryker brigades would have to fight carefully and choose when and where to make their stands. Probably fight an operational defense in depth, maximizing firepower and mobility and avoiding drawing a line in the sand to hold.

But when a US armored corps or two, is established and starts to push back, then the Chinese will be in a hurt-locker. The Chinese forces that fall back into the jungle and hills could stay there and be bombed, as US forces move to close their MSR's and even push into China. They would just need alot of .50 cal and 7.62. Tank fights would be over fast. And do not forget the B-52s that would make an appearance.

Comparing a T-90 tank against an M-1 and an SU-27 against a F-16 system on system does not illustrated the complete picture.

For example, many nations field pilots with more training and experience that US pilots. And on a plane on plane fight, these experienced pilots would probably win. But the US Navy and Airforce do not run a man-to-man offense or defense. The US has such a vastly superior targeting and control systems in place that gives its pilots and squadrons a huge tactical advantage over any opponent they may face.

The US has learned to combine the best of dogfighting with the best of air combat tactics with the best targeting system in the world. The Chinese may challenge that, but I highly doubt they could beat it. And the same applies for ground operations.

But, overall, we have a consesus. Battlefront should make the Taiwan scenario! And though in the Burma one too...

The TLAM technology has grown leaps and bounds since the Gulf War.

[Peter Cairns]

LtCol West

Your not listening to the scenario.....

The Chinese already effectively occupy Taiwanbefore the US arrives.

Japan, Korea, and the Philipeans, will not allow thw US to use their bases for what they view as a civil war.

Therefore,

You can't close the straits until you destroy the defences on Taiwan which include US made PAC3 patriots, and you can't use F-15's or F-16's because they don't have the range.

So there is no F-16 v Su-27 ( which as soviet RH AAM's outrange anything an F-16 carries, is one I'd call in favour of the Chinese) and your M-1 can't fight a T-90 until it gets ashore.

Peter.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

LtCol West

Your not listening to the scenario.....

The Chinese already effectively occupy Taiwanbefore the US arrives.

Japan, Korea, and the Philipeans, will not allow thw US to use their bases for what they view as a civil war.

Therefore,

You can't close the straits until you destroy the defences on Taiwan which include US made PAC3 patriots, and you can't use F-15's or F-16's because they don't have the range.

So there is no F-16 v Su-27 ( which as soviet RH AAM's outrange anything an F-16 carries, is one I'd call in favour of the Chinese) and your M-1 can't fight a T-90 until it gets ashore.

Peter.

Me being accused of not listening? I resemble that comment...

If the US could not use its own bases in Korea and Japan then that only slows the problem. And I highly doubt that the US would be denied to use its own bases in such a strategic situation. But, I am not a poly-sci wiz.

The US 7th fleet (reinforced)and the US airforce operating out of Guam still would be a very potent force to be reckoned with. Guam is getting alot of Airforce attention now, even letting it be known that F-22's are going to be stationed there in open source reporting. The fleet and the Airforce would have to work in concert so that US Navy and Marine fighters protect US Airforce strategic bombers (B-2s, B-1s, B-52s). And the F-22s can get close to Taiwan from Guam refuel in air, and also provide CAP.

Alot of Russian designed missles outrange US ones. Again, range alone is not really much of an advantage. Its the kill envelope of the weapons carried, maneuverability, tactics, pilot training, and targeting that is important. And the US has alot more experience in ACM, establishing air superiority, and in ground attack than the Chinese. I am sure there would be a few surprizes, like during the Korean war and Vietnam, but those will be exceptions and not the rule.

F-16s and F-15's can have the range with in-flight refueling as well. Not as great as having an airfield close-by, but to achieve mass at a critcal time, it would be key.

Marine M-1A1 tanks would be in the second assault wave, along with the LAVs and artillery. And the javelins and TOWs in the assault battalions would turn T-90's inside out when they are encountered. The assault battalions would not be completely helpless against an armored counterattack.

Also, I do not think that the Chinese have their own GPS network in space. They might, but I do not believe they do. If they did, they would be attacked as well, as well as their other birds up there. The US has the ability to turn off and turn back on its GPS network during wartime. This would work both ways, but during initial strikes and maybe during the beginning phase of the invasion, some Airforce general with a remote in one hand and a cup of coffee in the other could seriously degrade all GPS guided weapons when the US wants them degraded.

But the more we debate this, the more I want the game. Even using your scenario.

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

I'll end this by repeating that I am not trying to accuse you of being a bad guy, or a rabid nationalist, or anything of the sort. I just see your arguement as fundamentally flawed. I believe I have demonstrated the weaknesses of your arguement, and I am happy to live with your disagreement with that.

I couldn't have put my thoughts on you and your position any better

Well, here is something I think we can both agree upon. China is gearing up for a confrontation with the US on many levels. The likely source of conflict is over oil. Despite everything you have laid out, the fact is that China needs a LOT of oil in the coming years. More than it can get internally, more than it can get even from Mother Russia. This is why it is spending so much effort on cultivating realtionships in other parts of the world.

It would appear, therefore, that when the US and China both pull up to the pump, and the attendant says "I only have enough left to fill one tank", there is going to be a problem. I don't see either stepping out of their car and saying "you go ahead and take it, I'll walk from now on". Instead, it is going to be a very messy fight to the finish. One is not going to be satisfied with letting the air out of a tire or smashing a headlight. It's going to be right for the throat of the driver because they both know what is at stake.

When I read things about what China is doing NOW and what it isn't doing NOW I see quite clearly that China isn't as confident as you are that they will prevail in a conflict. Instead, I see a lot of very crafty, carefully executed ground work for eventual equilization. Perhaps I am wrong and you are right that China could come out on top of a conflict today with the US alone. But perhaps I am right that they aren't yet capable of doing that. The only real way to find out is for the two countries to go to war, and that would be a REALLY bad way to settle a bet

BTW, I also stick to my guns about the military side of things. Either China will do something that the US will (largely) not involve itself in, or it will be a widespread, full out war (hopefully without the glow in the dark stuff). Therefore, if China hit Burma, and the US felt it had to act there, carpet bombing of Chinese facilities, naval blockades, and what have you would all be brought out of the closet. There would be no limited war in Burma to discuss, rather a massive global war where the winner would preside over the rubble of his own and the other's civilization.

Unlike the nasty thoughts about the USSR and the West going toe to toe, this time there is an inevitability about it. During the Cold War the thing that would have set things on fire would have been sheer stupidity on both sides. There was no pressing reason why they had to duke it out. Not so with the China and US matchup. Oil is what fuels both economies and militaries, and oil is rapidly running out. Since both countries are stupid enough to rely upon oil for their power (literal and figuratively), the two will have a conflict over this diminishing resource at some point. We can only hope that sensible heads prevail and it is somehow worked out without a couple billion people getting caught in the cross fire. I'm an optimist by nature, but I do think my retirement plan should include a greenhouse and an ample supply of petsicides (in 7.62 caliber ).

Steve

[Rick]

Interesting that there isn't more being done about alternative fuels. Granted that they might be the solution to all of this might be a bit optimistic, as there might very well not be enough time, but the respective governments are doing very little on alternatives which seems odd given the circumstances.

[Tarquelne]

but the respective governments are doing very little on alternatives which seems odd given the circumstances.

Lets figure out just when the oil crunch will hit, and then extend term limits exactly that far. Then I think we'll see some real action.

(This may require forcing elected officials into harsh, higly experimental, inhumane and possibly grotesque longevity regimens. But I have no problem with that.)