"Naval Arms Race: China Sea" Topic

An interesting article with some good background information as to the strengths and capabilities of the various navies

link

Its a pretty detailed rehash of everything we already knew!

Kind of a 'coffee table' reading source.

What is of more importance is that the navies of the region have far too many obsolete vessels to oppose China and have no plans to replace them. Instead they dispute Chinese claims and hope to provoke the USA into solving the problem for them. The Political presumption is that if they can make the big bad Chinese open fire to discourage their territorial claims, then the big world Policeman will come along and solve it.

In reality the US has little reason to protect the Phillipines or Vietnamese objectives politically or strategically. Claims that Chinese ownership of the Spratly Islands will block the movement of shipping are silly. China has claimed ownership for decades.It regularly sends warships and people there, it has fought some minor clashes with Vietnam and the Phillipines over the islands and yet it has never ever disputed the passage of international shipping through the area.

The reason is simple. China is part of the world economy. Unlike earlier era's China is no longer an inward looking society both socially and economically. Today China needs international trade. Its economy and industry relies on international trade. It would make no sense what so ever for the possession of the Spratly Islands to mean China blocking the sea lanes. Such cries are just propaganda from the other claimants.

The mention of North Korea is rather spurious because while it is a rogue state and behaves in an unpredictable manner, the reality is that China will not take any from them that harms its own interest. If North Korea was to threaten the Chinese economy, I believe China would squish them like a bug. Its support of NK has always been because it did not want a common border with a US Allied state…South Korea. But if NK becomes more of a nuisance than the common border, China's benevolence will end.

A Chinese Admiral was asked about the threat of their land based missiles to US Aircraft carriers. He pointed out that the defensive missiles only had a certain range. They could not reach US waters. In fact, they could only reach US Carriers that were in China's own region. Nearly all Chinese military weapons could only reach their own region and were therefore defensive.

He went on to say, (with a wry smile), that China has no Carriers in the region of the USA. But no doubt if they did, the US would be complaining and wanting to know why?

China is now a superpower. But China is a superpower BECAUSE of the money she can earn from the west. I have Chinese friends. Money and earning it is something so deeply part of the Chinese psyche that they always predicted years ago, that eventually the PRC would open up and let business flow. They were right. The Chinese, like other people, Communist or not, like to make money.

As it currently stands, China's navy could beat the daylights out of any of its neighbours with the exception of Japan. South Korean would also put up a good fight.

BUT….it is not capable of fighting the USN with success and if you look at its ships, the designs are nearly all for operation in its own region. China does have a few ships capable of international deployment, but nowhere near enough to be a threat to anyone outside the immediate Asian area.

Therefore at present, China can be seen as a superpower who's forces are extensive, but heavily based on the defensive. Its offensive capability in its own region is growing more and more impressive, but still not capable of action further afield. It could attack Taiwan and has the capability. It could attack the Philippines.

It could invade Vietnam or Thailand. But why would it do that when the effect would be to cripple its own economy?
China would have no claim. The UN would impose sancitions. Trade would be damaged. The US might even interfere, Japan too, and a full blown war is hardly in their interest.

However that does not preclude driving off those countries from what it considers its 'possessions' and legitimate claims in the local region. Hence the SPRATLY Islands and various other islands are a possible area of conflict. But I predict that if it does, the Chinese would want to make it a short sharp and simple, driving off of another claimant, without involving other countries.

I can therefore see the possibility of Chinese military action over any attempt to overturn what it believes are its legitimate claims. But I cannot see any logic in China engaging in an offensive war that would put it in a position of having to fight the very nations it relies on selling goods too! Its war economy could not survive on internal trade. Its economy runs on INTERnational trade.

Similarly, at this time, a major war in that region would be financially crippling for an already cash strapped USA. Therefore I serious doubt the US would take any military action against China as long as it is a situation where China has lodged some sort of arguable legitimate claim. There might be a lot of huffing and puffing in the UN, but little else.

If Vietnam or the Phillipines got militarily squished over the Spratly Islands, but it did not go further than that, I think the most support they could rely on from the US or other Nations would be a sympathetic pat on the shoulder and a 'tut tut'in the UN. It would require such a conflict to spread much wider for the rest of the world to get involved and again logic says what would be the value of that to China. It wants the Spratly Islands for the oil. The oil will drive its industries. Its industries wil sell too….oh…. the West! The reason for expanding a war beyond the Spratly Islands is therefore illogical.

Good artical thanks Mapleleaf

But I predict that if it does, the Chinese would want to make it a short sharp and simple, driving off of another claimant, without involving other countries

Home before the leaves fall/Christmas/Tet/etc., just like everyone always predicts.

It's funny how perfectly reasonable arguments like Mal's get overtaken by events. Not saying that the above is doomed to turn into a terrible conflagration, but it reminds me of the irrefutable logic of economists and politicians who were absolutely certain warfare on the Continent was a thing of the past due to the economic interdependence of the European Great Powers.

Then they all went to war over Serbia.

I agree with most of what Mal has said, but clearly, China does not need the navy, or military forces that it is rapidly developing, since US forces are in decline, and of no real threat to them.

Also, as mentioned, few, if any nations, other than perhaps the Japanese, can go toe to toe with them in the air, or sea either, excepting their cautious ally, Russia. Even they might need to rely on their superior strategic nuclear forces, depending upon the scenario, if they were to get into another tiff with China, as has happened many times in the past.

India and Pakistan, while they have nukes, and decent air forces, are not really a threat to China either. I don't believe the Indian navy is either, despite its aggressive modernization program.

I suspect China plans to essentially have the largest, most powerful military force in Asia, in order to use it as a threat to others, in order to get their way politically. I imagine they will try to use political avenues, and/or threats to get their way, but will reserve the right to use military force, when needed as well, as they have threatened to do against many nations, over the South China Sea, and the islands there.

Taiwan, and Hong Kong seem perfect candidates for this policy, as well as the Phillipines, Vietnam, and other nations too.

They continue to try to keep the USA out of any negotiations about the region, since they want to be the big fish in the small lake. I suspect we will continue to weigh in on the side of the other, weaker nations in the region, at least diplomatically.

I think what is troubling to many is the over the top rhetoric of some of China's military leaders, as well as some of their very questionable actions in the past, even against the US, e.g. their purposeful collision with, and forced downing of one of our recon aircraft, not to mention their threats of nuking the major cities of the West Coast of the USA as well.

Granted, there is free passage of merchants through the South China Sea for now, but China has declared it to be essentially one of their lakes, which doesn't inspire confidence in their willingness to accept free navigation on the high seas in the future.

I suspect Japan is very mindful of that, especially since no doubt the Chinese would like to be in a position to threaten, and bully them as well, given the bad blood that is carried over from WWII.

If China were to start a real shooting war in the region, the US might back the other nations, depending upon the scenario, what was at stake, and who is sitting in the oval office.

If it is just a brief air, or naval skirmish, as Mal mentioned, I doubt we would go to war over that.

However, if there was a threat to free navigation of vessels in a critical region, that might harm some of the nations in the area, I suspect the US Navy would be almost compelled to provide assistance in order to reassert and support this basic tenet of American policy.

Home before the leaves fall/Christmas/Tet/etc., just like everyone always predicts.

Then they all went to war over Serbia.

Totally different situation. Prior to WW1 and right through to WW2 the major powers gained much of their trade income through colonial expansion and the exploitation of those colonies. The did not get the majority of their income from each other or from little Serbia.

Today China is dependent on its income, to the very people it would have to fight. It cant rely on an overseas empire to provide wealth. International trade being opened up was how China gained technology and gained its current income.
China may act with a certain amount of aggression in some circumstances. But nothing can change that most of its ore and other minerals are imported…especially from here in Australia, as is most of its oil. Those imports are sent back as exports and it is payment for those exports that is driving the Chinese economy.
They cannot trust the Russians and there is not much love lost between them and the Russians dont have as much money to spend. North Korea is a basket case. Syria is small change and wobbly in the present circumstances. Africa wants goods but cant afford to pay. China cant afford to give too much away just to gain allies of dubious value.

There income is all tied up in what it sells to the countries that can pay. Cutting that off put them in the lack of cash situation that Japan found itself in pre WW2 when cut off from its oil supplies. But the Chinese are not stupid. They would not want to destroy the very nations that are the source of income. Even if they did, the recovery time building the markets up again would be disasterous for their finances.

I dont say that China will not take some sort of aggressive action in the near future or distant future. I merely say that it will be a very calculated one based on not wreaking long term harm on themselves.

I am certainly NOT one of the 'home before the leaves fall' crowd. I merely believe that the Chinese will behave far more rationally than the hot heads seem to be predicting.

Short sharp wars are only possible when the objectives are clear cut and one side gains them quickly.

WW1 had no clear objectives other than two angry dogs rushing at each other to win a fight. Vietnam was a political shambles. The current war in Afghanistan lacks any really clear objectives.

The first Gulf War was over quickly because it had a set objective…but probably a mistaken one because it did not also remove the problem. (Saddam).
The Falklands war ended quickly because the objectives were very clear.
Hitler's invasion of Norway and then of France, were over quickly because the objectives were met. The problem there was that he kept adding new objectives!

I believe China will consider domination of the SPRATLY group worth the trouble and like Britain in the Falklands, limit the combat to that area. To take it wider would surely involve other nations and that defeats the objective of enforcing their claim of sovereignty of those islands. It would be only logical to do that if they wanted a wider war and I just cant see that being of any value to them as it cuts off their money supply.

but clearly, China does not need the navy, or military forces that it is rapidly developing, since US forces are in decline, and of no real threat to them.

From conversations I have had with Chinese visitors and businessmen there seems to be an element of surprise that we would think their armed forces build up is a threat. They point out what happened when China was weak, invaded by colonial powers and subdivided. They are determined that will never happen again. Since most nations build up their defence forces for that very reason, I dont see that as unreasonable. As to the size of the forces, one must remember that China is one hell of a BIG country.

But that aside, they too have been talking of changing over to an all volunteer military of reduced size but greater capability, much the same as most of the rest of the world has been doing. China has until now, relied on its sheer size of population being its main defence.

As to threat and US decline. As I mentioned earlier one of the Chinese admirals pointed out that it was American forces that were in range of China's home soil based weapons. They have no Chinese forces in range of US home soil defences.

If considered rationally, they have a very good point. So of course they will continue to build up their forces.

Besides, the technology gap alone would require them to have far more forces to defend with, than the US could throw at them. Equality in numbers would be no equality at all when advanced technology systerms are considered. At a later time, if technology closes, they may require less.

I'm not trying to be a China apologist. Merely trying to point out some of the rationale of it all.

I am not sure why China would go to war against Hong Kong, since they have ruled it since 1997?

I wargamed a confrontation as China against all foes, I was senior naval commander, with a politburo of political types above me setting all sorts of limitations and a myriad of missions.

I will list missions

1) Retake Taiwan
2) Defend the Nation State against all enemies.
3) If the US Navy is considered a threat, to "bloody its nose" – To send sailors home in body bags etc, and to ensure that this was a defensive action, and could be described as such at the UN.
4) To ensure that trade was not disrupted, and that fuel and oil continued to reach China from the Gulf.

I took Taiwan, within 4-6 days of the invasion commencing, and the nearest aircraft carrier was still 3 days sailing away. (the reason the aircraft carrier was out of position was because of a terrorist attack, that had followed a humanitarian operation due to a natural disaster in the pacific region, I had nothing to do with them but took advantage of the dislocation)

The Japanese and South Koreans, bolstered by two frigates from Australia and a destroyer from another navy (unidentified by my subcommanders – but presumed to be either Indian, American, or British, No radar used so difficult to confirm) carried out freedom of navigation in the South China sea, I set a couple of spy ships to monitor them, and commited a pattern of overflights – high altitude grid flights to locate them and keep them safely away from any surface forces.

One of my ships hit a mine – (could have been an american torpedo?) and we discovered a collection of 60s-70s era russian mines that had been planted in a strange location – we cleared them.

When the US fleet – Carrier got into range we launched a 120 aircraft raid, with about a quarter of our best long range anti ship missiles (about 120 missiles) we fired a bearing only launch at about extreme range whilst a single submarine lurked about 34 nm from the american carrier.

The Surface group turned away – straight towards my submarine… which waited…

The incoming long range missiles were intercepted by aircraft, missiles, point defenses, guns and suffered more misses… in the end three reached a target, and two exploded, one in a spectacular non event showering a decoy helicopter with hot death, the other hitting the superstructure of a fleet auxiliary, and causing no real mission critical damage.

The counter attack knocked over 60 long range planes out of the sky, my submarine was promptly sunk as it lauched its second torpedo, and the threat of further expansion of Chinese power was curtailed when three ships carrying vital fuel oil were attacked by pirates, delaying their arrival to the theatre.

China held Taiwan, and the UN reluctantly enforced a censure on the US for its role as agressor in the region, with sabre rattling. I was sacked (did not bloody the nose and lost too many assets)

- I think a real war could follow the same kind of lines, and this has been discussed at a high level in the UK.

Chinese ham handed diplomacy has essentially created a coalition of neighbors that created the very thing she feared most, encircelment by hostile neighbors. Japan, Korea, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Vietnam and India have all had recent disputes with China, all of which the PRC reacted to with bluster and aggression. If the Chinese exercise full military means to resolve a Spratley dispute, any number of Asian players can, in concert with but not needing more than US diplomatic cover(and maybe an Indian Ocean based CVBG), shut down the Straits of Malacca and the Chinese can watch their economy grind to a halt in less than 30 days unable to do much more than bluster. The PRC is a power in their local waters but their ability to project power declines sharply once outside of their 200 mile limit.

Now what a horribly embarrassed PRC would do if faced with having to back down is a totally different and scary issue.

True, China owns HK, but apparently those living/working in HK are bristling at some of the Chinese edicts, so I doubt the official full transfer, slated for 2047 will go smoothly.

Link to some info on Hong Kong citizens' views on the subject:

link

"As I mentioned earlier one of the Chinese admirals pointed out that it was American forces that were in range of China's home soil based weapons. They have no Chinese forces in range of US home soil defences".

Quite true, but that has been the case for quite some time, and we haven't invaded, or attacked them.

I seem to recall we also provided them with significant aid, and defeated one of their major enemies 70 years or so ago, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

;-)

I can see China trying to retake Taiwan, eventually, or to browbeat its citizens into surrendering back into the Chinese fold. Not sure if that will ever happen, but predict the Chinese will give it a try, if they can't do it through political means.

No doubt, as mentioned, the Chinese will continue to try to bully others into giving in to their over the top demands, as they continue to strengthen, militarily.

It would be very interesting to see what would happen, if indeed, the Straits of Malacca were shut down, or threatened by Asian submarines in the region, due to overt Chinese moves in other areas, e.g. the South China Sea, etc.

Sounds like the makings of a good scenario for a naval, or combined arms wargame.

The Spratly Islands are China's last territorial demand, what we have here is peace in our time.

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
bunkermeister.blogspot.com

Well, excepting those little islands just NE of Taiwan, that are owned by some Japanese individuals, who are thinking of selling to the Japanese government.

Of course, then there is Taiwan, which they claim as their own, but some don't seem to like the whole reunification idea.

And then, there's the Phillipines, which one Chinese announcer recently stated really belongs to China………

I think I'll stop there, for now, but you get the idea.

Unless the other nations agreed, any blockade of Chinese shipping through to the Indian Ocean would never get support. The hard facts are that many western countries also depend on China too.
But if necessary China can ship eastward through the Panama canal.
That would be impossible if the US was involved, but I still dont think anyone can afford it to be a long war. Money is in short supply. The US is technically bankrupt already without adding that problem too. And think how many US and European countries are really reliant on Chinese products due to having closed their own factories and moved them to …. CHINA!

I dont say a war could not happen. Only that it would not really be in the interest of China or the West financially. The only countries that have something to gain by a Chinese defeat would be the small regional ones, and I just cannot see that the West would go bankrupt to help them. Friends and allies yes….but does the US go bust for them??

Thanks Mike. I got the joke/ironic comment. :0)
It reminds me of that situation too.
IE Why not try it on with a bit bluster? We could actualy get what we want. Though in this case they have some muscle to back it up.

I agree with most of what Mal has said, but clearly, China does not need the navy, or military forces that it is rapidly developing, since US forces are in decline, and of no real threat to them.

In order to be a World Power, a nation must have a military worthy of World Power status.

100 years ago, that meant things like battleships. (Kongo-class BCs, for example)

Today, that means nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers.

Even better (or worse?) Chinese nationalists have begun to re-assert their long-dormant claims to Okinawa in the last few months. Now there is a wargaming scenario!

Hmmm, hadn't heard about the Okinawa claims. Thanks for sharing the info on that.

It is interesting. I can't see the Japanese giving in easily on that one.

War is rarely in anyone's best interests, financially. From a historical perspective, I find that to rarely be a consideration. Emotions, and national bravado usually win the day in that respect.

I agree with you Mal, the closure of the Straits isn't likely, especially for a lengthy period of time.

However, I can see where some smaller nation(s), which feel they have been wronged, might decide to take action with one, or more of their conventional submarines, to mine the Straits, or torpedo a vessel, or two that are bound for China, in order to make a point against them, and to raise their costs for shipping. I imagine they get a lot of oil from the Middle East as well, so that could have a significant impact on them financially.

A covert submarine war against China would put a lot of pressure on them, and I doubt they currently have the ASW assets to succeed against one, especially with the newer, very quiet diesel-electrics, and AIP subs being sold on the world market.

doubt they currently have the ASW assets to succeed against one, especially with the newer, very quiet diesel-electrics, and AIP subs being sold on the world market.

The profusion of those would certainly pose some problems. But I guess, like the wars of the past, we often dont really KNOW what each side is capable of until the shooting starts. Nor do we know what strategy they will actually adopt. Look how many scenario's were put forward regard the Soviets attacking in the Norwegian Sea, the plains of Germany, the oil of Iran, during the cold war period. But when the Soviets collapsed and many things became public, we found that mostly they were intending a strategy of defence and forcing the west to come to them. A plan of "come into my web, said the spider to the fly!" They had no intention of trying to do the things NATO had practiced…. probably because NATO had practiced it!

Meanwhile we can only speculate!

Err, Mal. We still don't know what the Soviets intended. No Soviet warplan has ever been released. They are all still safely locked up in the Kremlin vault.

Okinawa would be a mega combined operation to game out!

Especially with a US Marine regiment+ permanently stationed there to 'discuss ownership'!

Yes, but they keep trying to get them off the island, so that should be considered as well.

I imagine they might be more likely to make a power grab, or at least start creating some incidents, once they are gone.

The very apparent case of the blind leading the blind.

Mako,

True, China owns HK, but apparently those living/working in HK are bristling at some of the Chinese edicts, so I doubt the official full transfer, slated for 2047 will go smoothly.

As someone who lives in HK it seems to me that you are confusing political development with sovereignty. There is no doubt about the latter, HK has been Chinese since 1997, (indeed, some would say it always was Chinese.)Whilst HK has a different legal and financial system to the Mainland no one here does not think of it as part of China. Defence and foreign affairs, (with a few exceptions like trade, legal and sporting representations,)are Beijing's responsibility, just as they were London's responsibility before the reunification. The PLA is responsible for the defence of HK, (the Stonecutter's PLAN naval base is only 3km from where I'm typing this to prove the point.)

Cheers,
Bertie