A new slant on RIMPAC Naval politics/The Fight To Control The South China Sea

[Aktungbby]

would imply significant coasts.

I thoroughly agree with your analysis; both Hong Kong and Formosa (Taiwan) are significantly off the coast of China. I do not believe any one would revert to nukes; this is warfare/haggling for economic resources, not national survival-and nobody's that stupid...yet. The commitment would most certainly be critical against mainland China as our allies: Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Brunei, India and Viet Nam, all major players, would need to know we would stand the distance. They are the principle "frogs around this pond". The situation map> borrowed from the Chinese minisub thread (thanks Harvs) throws considerable light on the situation. With recent Chinese submarine forays into the Indian Ocean...significant coasts indeed!

[ikalugin]

If this is a shooting war (and blockade of PRC would result in a shooting war), then PRC would deploy area denial assets, which have sufficient range to deny USN operations in the area... Unless USN is ready to take the risks. Which would mean that it would loose a number of surface ships, probably carrier included.

You couldn't just pressure a regional power into doing things by using military force threats and expect no resistance. If pressure is sufficient (ie an all out war with ocupation of Taiwan), then PRC would engage US bases in the region and may shift to tactical nukes.

Morever balance in the region is shifting, at the moment PRC has sort of parity with other regional players (ie Japan and ROK) and something one could count as a possible conventional superiority. This would change over time, as PRC naval build up goes on. If we take the estimates by globalsecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...a/plan-mod.htm) then things are not looking rosy for the USN to conduct any meaningfull power projection in there even in near future.
The air/naval bases in that southern area further improve the PRC control of the area, further increasing costs of USN power projection in there.

Note that ROK and Japan strongly dislike each other for historic reasons. India and others are unlikely to commit, unless they were directly hit by PRC first. Hence allies in that war should not be taken for granted.

A war with PRC would also imply the need of Russia to be the Western ally, as otherwise blockade of PRC is not possible.

[Onkel Neal]

Which is why I cannot see any way out of this. China will try to enforce their idea of sovereignty and dictate to the other countries in the region regarding trade and navigation of this important sea lane. When push comes to shove, either China will have to back down and allow other nations the use of these sea lanes, as International law has always prescribed, or Japan and the US will have to concede and accept this. If the US decides to use military force to back China down, we will end up in another Korean-style war, at least initially. Somewhere down the line, like you say, someone will get fancy with tactical nukes and we will be undergoing our first nuclear exchange. Putin loves to bring up the topic of nukes. I know our current President will be cautious, but he's soon to be replaced, and anyone else is going to be more hawkish than him. So, China may get a surprise when they realize what they've brought on themselves.

Found some really good images of the progress they've made constructing these islands.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphi...uth-china-sea/

[mapuc]

I have a bad feeling about this. I do hope they, the countries who are involved in this hot issue,-will find some agreement on which all parties can agree on.

Markus

[Aktungbby]

"Border skirmishes continued throughout the 1980s, including a significant skirmish in April 1984 and a naval battle over the Spratly Islands in 1988 known as the Johnson South Reef Skirmish." Actually, looking again at who holds what in the Spratleys, (my above post-tnx again Harvs) I don't see as great a problem as previously. the Ft Apache aspect is obvious. The correct US Position is to have the 'client allies' deal with it as in fact they have previously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War The Sino plan simply can't operate long-term with attrition against genuine resistance at sea; already demonstrated especially by Viet Nam. India and Japan would also probably be big players too. The Monkeys fist grasp exceeds their reach here.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I have a bad feeling about this. I do hope they, the countries who are involved in this hot issue,-will find some agreement on which all parties can agree on.

Markus

Me too, buddy. I'm not extremely optimistic....looks like too many trains on the same track.

[mapuc]

Discovery News had made this video

What if China & Japan went to war

https://testtube.com/testtubenews/wh...campaign=owned

Recent territorial tension between China and Japan have resurfaced. So we were wondering, what would happen if China and Japan went to war

My thought about this.

You can not predict how a war will proceed, after it has started.

As I wrote on their FB-page
"I think it will end with a nuclear exchange between USA and China"

Markus

[Aktungbby]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/20/us-pacific-fleet-chief-joins-surveillance-of-south-china-sea.html The new U.S. commander of the Pacific Fleet joined a seven-hour surveillance flight over the South China Sea on board one of America's newest spy planes, a move over the weekend that will likely annoy China.
Addressing those concerns, Swift said he was "very satisfied with the resources that I have available to me as the Pacific Fleet commander," adding, "we are ready and prepared to respond to any contingency that the president may suggest would be necessary."
The U.S., Swift stressed, doesn't take sides but would press ahead with operations to ensure freedom of navigation in disputed waters and elsewhere.