Languish.org

Even if aircraft carriers are vulnerable to  their antiship missiles, wouldn't America's complete dominance in submarine warfare completely destroy the Chinese fleet?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11630185/US-China-war-inevitable-unless-Washington-drops-demands-over-South-China-Sea.html

QuoteUS-China war 'inevitable' unless Washington drops demands over South China Sea

Warning from state-run China newspaper as Beijing reveals plans for development of disputed South China Sea islands


By Julian Ryall, Tokyo

3:35PM BST 26 May 2015

China's armed forces are to extend their operations and its air force will become an offensive as well as defensive force for the first time, in a major shift in policy that will strengthen fears of accidental conflict.

A policy document by the state council, or cabinet, said China faced a "grave and complex array of security threats", justifying the change.

The People's Liberation Army, including its navy and air force, will be allowed to "project power" further beyond its borders at sea and more assertively in the air in order to safeguard its maritime possessions, the white paper stated.

The navy will add "open seas protection" to a traditional remit of "offshore waters defence", it said.

The posture risks escalating the tension over disputed islands in the South China Sea and elsewhere in the Pacific, where the United States is determined to protect the interests of allies like Taiwan and the Philippines.

Only last week, a US aircraft ignored repeated warnings from the Chinese military to fly a reconnaissance mission over the islands.

Global Times, a tabloid newspaper run by the Communist Party, said that China might have to "accept" there would be conflict with the United States.

"If the United States' bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a US-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea", said the paper, which is often seen as a mouth-piece of hardline nationalists in the government in Beijing.

State media reported on Tuesday that Beijing had begun building two lighthouses on reefs in the Spratly Islands, a smattering of outcrops that are claimed by an array of countries including not only China but also Vietnam and the Philippines.

Last month, satellite imagery revealed the Chinese had almost completed an air strip on another reef - Fiery Cross - while they are turning another rock, Mischief Reef, into a full island through land reclamation.

The Global Times article described the construction of runways, harbour facilities and buildings on the disputed Spratly Islands as the nation's "most important bottom line".

Speaking at a press conference in Beijing, Yang Yujun, a spokesman for the Defence Ministry, dismissed international criticism of China's policies in the South China Sea, claiming the work was the same as building roads and homes on mainland China and that it would benefit "the whole of international society".

"From the perspective of sovereignty, there is absolutely no difference", he said, adding that "some external countries are also busy meddling in South China Sea affairs".

Analysts say neither Washington nor Beijing appear to be in the mood to back down and that there is a serious risk of a minor incident in airspace around the islands escalating rapidly.

"I think the concern has to be that China misjudges the situation", said Robert Dujarric, director of the Institute of Contemporary Asian Studies at the Japan campus of Temple University.

"Neither party wants a war if it can be avoided, but there are red lines for both sides", he said. "I worry whether Beijing considers the US to be a declining power and assumes that Washington will back down if it shoots down a US observation aircraft".

Washington chose to "de-escalate" a major crisis that blew up after a Chinese fighter collided with a US Navy intelligence-gathering aircraft off Hainan Island in April 2001.

However, Prof. Dujarric said there would be a different response if a similar incident were to occur in what Washington insists is international air space over the South China Sea.

Recent developments have provoked new concerns in the region, with Ma Ying-jeou, the president of Taiwan, calling for the different nations laying claim to the South China Sea to put their differences aside and carry out joint development of natural resources.

No one fights a war over a bunch fucking Coral Reefs.

Quote from: Zanza on May 26, 2015, 07:18:06 PM
No one fights a war over a bunch fucking Coral Reefs.

The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.

The Chinese territorial ambitions are like 1% of the Japanese ambitions of WW2. Would the US have fought the Pacific War over the Spartly Islands?

Quote from: Zanza on May 26, 2015, 07:30:29 PM
The Chinese territorial ambitions are like 1% of the Japanese ambitions of WW2. Would the US have fought the Pacific War over the Spartly Islands?

Probably if the Japs had fired a couple times on planes and ships transiting the area.

I don't know.  They did shoot up the Panay.  And nobody is interested in fighting a war over some coral reefs. Zanza is right.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowmemes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2F1-percent-cat-on-the-apocalypse.jpg&hash=e75bd0108452d9fe8803ac9e0a5f182a31c5755d)

If they do that, they'll never get their money back.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2015, 08:33:34 PM
I don't know.  They did shoot up the Panay.  And nobody is interested in fighting a war over some coral reefs. Zanza is right.

I think it has more to do with the gas and minerals underneath.

Blood for oil at a time where the US is self sufficient in fossils for the first time in a century or so?

China won't go to war over these.  They can't afford to lose.

Quote from: Admiral Yi link=topic=12917.msg87893
Probably if the Japs had fired a couple times on planes and ships transiting the area.

They don't do that though. And what ships should they fire at? Liberia flagged freighters carrying Chinese containers to Eurasia? Why? There is no Lusitania.
To keep the analogy to the last Pacific War: Last time it took shooting at ships on battleship row in Oahu. That's a bit more escalation than a protest over some American recon plane flyby...

Quote from: Zanza on May 27, 2015, 12:14:27 AM
They don't do that though. And what ships should they fire at? Liberia flagged freighters carrying Chinese containers to Eurasia? Why? There is no Lusitania.
To keep the analogy to the last Pacific War: Last time it took shooting at ships on battleship row in Oahu. That's a bit more escalation than a protest over some American recon plane flyby...

Maybe I'm being a little cryptic.  I voted not gonna happen.  The US is never going to tell China, stop building bases on those reefs, or stop your exploratory drilling, or we will declare war.  Only way shooting starts is if China fires on a plane or ship in "their territory."

I don't agree with Zanza that the US would ignore the Chinese shooting down US planes (the Panay incident ended with japan apologizing and paying compensation), but do agree with Mono that the Chinese won't shoot down the US planes.

I'm not sure why this is in a thread by itself.  Don't we have a thread on this already?

Quote from: citizen k on May 26, 2015, 09:47:41 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2015, 08:33:34 PM
I don't know.  They did shoot up the Panay.  And nobody is interested in fighting a war over some coral reefs. Zanza is right.

I think it has more to do with the gas and minerals underneath.

Right.  Which means its about money.  Which means this is really a negotiation.
The oil and minerals are going to China no matter what because that is where the demand is.  Chinese companies will be involved because they are the big players in the region.
Only question is who is going to skim off the royalties and how much goes to who.
That is something you posture over, but not go to war over.

And yes, wars have been fought for less.  It's not impossible.  But the PRC leadership is more careful than that.  Stability is the paramount goal.

I agree with grumbler that no new threads should be started on Languish.

Quote from: The Brain on May 27, 2015, 03:47:27 PM
I agree with grumbler that no new threads should be started on Languish.

I agree with you that every post should have its own thread.

Let's agree to agree.

So much harmony and agreement  :)

It seems fighting fire with fire could be the only way.
I wonder what would happen if one of the other claimants did as the Philippines have done and rammed a ship into one of the claimed rocks that china hasn't got around to concreting over yet

Well, if there is a fight between the US and China, the US is better off if it happens at sea, else on land the sheer numbers of millions of Chinese troops would likely overwhelm any opponent.    ;)

Congress is shockingly on point on this issue.

Quote
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbreakingdefense.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F3%2F2015%2F04%2FFigure-7.jpg&hash=a94bdda04bfda57635be8ac56011701eb3cda272)
CSBA graphic

The Senate Armed Services Committee has joined the push to give the Army a much larger role in the Pacific (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2015/02/reinventing-the-army-via-pacific-pathways/'). The hard part, ironically, may be getting the Army to go along.

Why should soldiers do more in the Pacific, a theater traditionally dominated by pilots, Marines, and, above all, sailors? The Pacific, obviously, is full of water. But it's also full of islands — and some of the larger islands signed treaties with the US: Japan, the Philippines and Taiwan. The Army's potential role there isn't limited to defending against invasion. The Army already has missile defense (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2015/02/army-explores-new-missile-defense-options/') radars in Japan (the Raytheon AN/TPY-2) and may deployTHAAD anti-missile batteries (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/save-our-seoul-south-korea-needs-thaad-asap-for-missile-defense/') to South Korea.

But why stop at defensive systems, ask lawmakers like House seapower chairman Randy Forbes (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/army-should-build-ship-killer-missiles-rep-randy-forbes/'). China's Second Artillery Force (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2013/10/chinas-fear-of-us-may-tempt-them-to-preempt-sinologists/') already has long-range land-based missiles (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/no-mans-sea-csbas-lethal-vision-of-future-naval-war/') that can attack US and allied ships far out at sea. What if the US and its allies fielded land-based anti-ship systems of their own? That might deter — or in the last resort, defeat — a Chinese land grab (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/rep-forbes-make-china-bleed-budget-deal-stops-hemorrhaging/') for disputed islands like the Senkakus (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/beijing-summit-xi-changes-tactics-not-strategy/') or the Spratlys (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/rubber-hits-road-china-challenges-p-8-crew-on-video-top-senators-condemn-prc/').

Pushed by Forbes (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/more-ships-more-missiles-less-waiting-rep-forbes-talks-2016-ndaa/'), the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/hasc-ndaa-mark-challenges-white-house-from-a-10-to-iraq-to-space/') requires a Pentagon report "as to the feasibility, utility, and options for mobile, land-based systems to provide anti-ship fires." That's an idea endorsed by former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/hagel-army-role-wont-erode-can-even-broaden-to-pacific-missile-force/').

The Senate's version of the bill goes much further.

It calls for "a comprehensive operational assessment of a potential future role for U.S. ground forces in the island chains of the western Pacific in creating anti-access/area denial (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/tag/anti-access-area-denial')(A2/AD) capabilities in cooperation with host nations to deter and defeat aggression in the region." The capabilities specified for study include land-based anti-ship missiles and more. The full list, with our commentary in italics:

"(A) Anti-ship mines (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/tag/sea-mines-series-2015/') and mobile missiles as a means of neutralizing adversary naval forces, including amphibious forces, and inhibiting their movement, and protecting the shores of host nations and friendly naval forces and supply operations." (US-laid minefields devastated Japanese shipping during World War II (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2015/03/sowing-the-sea-with-fire-how-russia-china-iran-lay-mines-and-how-to-stop-them/'), but the Navy has largely gotten out of the business since).

"(B) Mobile air defense (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/laser-on-a-truck-the-armys-role-in-the-offset-strategy/') surveillance and missile systems to protect host-nation territory and ground, naval, and air forces, and to deny access to defended airspace by adversaries." (The Navy's Aegis ships (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2014/08/non-standard-navy-sm-6-kills-cruise-missiles-deep-inland/') play an ever-larger role in missile defense, but the fleet is reluctant to tie up such assets protecting friendly territory when a land-based defensive battery could do the job more cheaply and as well).

"(C) Electronic warfare capabilities to support air and naval operations." (Navy electronic warfare (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2015/03/winning-the-war-of-electrons-inside-the-new-maritime-strategy/') is far ahead of Army EW (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/army-electronic-warfare-is-a-weapon-but-cyber-is-sexier/'), but the Chief of Naval Operations himself has noted (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2013/10/cno-says-navy-needs-ground-forces-help-on-cyber-electronic-warfare/') that land-based systems can be larger and more powerful than anything you can fit on a ship).

"(D) Hardened ground-based communications capabilities for host-nation defense and for augmentation and extension of naval, air, and satellite communications." (Jamming and hacking of wireless communications is a major worry in a high-tech war (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2012/08/drones-need-secure-datalinks-to-survive-vs-iran-china/'), making old-fashioned, well-buried landlines an attractive backup).

"(E) Maneuver forces to assist in host-nation defense, deny access to adversaries, and provide security for air and naval deployments." (Only in this fifth and final item do we get to the classic Army role as "boots on the ground (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/paladin-pim-the-little-cannon-that-could-the-future-of-the-armored-brigade/')" securing territory).

Unlike the House, the Senate also specifies who it wants conducting the study, with participants including the celebrated Office of Net Assessment (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/ash-carter-orders-osd-agency-cuts-asap/') and the four services' War Colleges.

"This is a concept that offers loads of opportunity for US strategy in Asia for a relatively small cost," one Senate staffer told me. "We need low-cost ways to raise costs and create new dilemmas for China in the Pacific right now. A mobile, land-based sea-denial and anti-air warfare capability is a no-brainer."

"There were actually staffers on both the R[epublican] and D[emocratic] side thinking about this and we found ourselves all on the same page," the staffer went on. "There is a broad, bipartisan consensus on the Hill and in the think tank community that the Army should be moving in this direction, but a limited appetite in the Army to take on such a mission right now."

"US ground forces should be giving these concepts and capabilities more attention than they have been,"  a House staffer agreed. "This is a great opportunity for the Army, in particular, to leverage the unique capabilities and characteristics of land forces to play a new and important role in places like the Western Pacific. It is puzzling that the level of interest within big Army is so low."

Anti-ship defenses — the Coastal Artillery — were a major and prestigious part of the Army until World War II. Shore-based anti-ship missiles would be the 21st century equivalent. The latest Army Operating Concept (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/the-army-gropes-toward-a-cultural-revolution/') even states (http://'http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pams/tp525-3-1.pdf') that "Future Army forces will [conduct] the projection of power from land across the maritime, air, space, and cyberspace domains."

But while "cross-domain synergy" and "pivot to Asia (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2012/01/a-pivot-to-asia-not-so-fast/')" are the strategic rhetoric, the Budget Control Act (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/tag/sequestration/') is the reality. Unless the Army gets more money to build shore-based missile batteries, it would have to cut something else. "Army coastal artillery is interesting," a third Hill staffer said, "but tell me what you'll trade off to create it? Infantry? Field artillery (http://'http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/paladin-pim-the-little-cannon-that-could-the-future-of-the-armored-brigade/')? Short-range air defense?"

With the Army feeling even more under siege than the other services, building a whole new capability is daunting. But it could give the Army new missions and new sources of funding.

*****

Above article by Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/sasc-pushes-bigger-army-role-in-pacific-vs-china/ (http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/sasc-pushes-bigger-army-role-in-pacific-vs-china/)