"Could U.S. Troops Capture China's Island Outposts?" Topic

"The U.S. military probably has enough warplanes to win a war with China in the western Pacific. What it doesn't have is enough bases.

But maybe American troops could "borrow" those bases … from China. By dropping paratroopers or landing Marines on some of Beijing's new island outposts.

Distance is the great destroyer of tactical air power, especially in the vast Asia-Pacific region. Most modern fighters can fly and fight no farther than 500 miles from their bases. Refueling tankers realistically can add a few hundred miles to a fighter's combat radius…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Of course they can capture them. That's the easy part.

Keeping them would be much, much harder.

A better strategy would be to build large, or enormous, mobile bases out of recycled plastic bottles and other floating trash, to make them virtually unsinkable, and post them around the Senkakus and in the East China Sea. Move them to the SCS when/if needed.

They can be large enough to create an airbase for fighters and strategic bombers, hangars, and all the buildings, personnel, and defenses that go along with that.

Since they'll be mobile, they'll have even more utility than those artificial islands the Chinese built.

To approach and capture the bases safely would require the US military to pre-emptively destroy China's extensive and presumably dispersed A2AD network both on the mainland and the islands themselves. Hundreds of radars and command centers plus thousands of missile sites will probably have to be neutralized first.

Nope, you can go under that, fairly easily.

Seals and US Marines/others, deployed by subs and amphibs.

Of course, if desired, their sub-launched cruise missiles can take out the entire A2AD network(s) easily, if desired/needed.

A2AD being a threat assumes the network works as advertised and is manned by competent officers and troops. If it starts to break down in one spot then it had failed. I'm sure the US and it's allies have a lot of classified plans and equipment to ensure the breakdown occurs. I think a well planned op could easily seize the islands. I agree that holding them would be very difficult.

Why ever would we want them?

Exactly.
SOME PEOPLE seem to want the USA to go flitting about, hither and yon, looking for foreign adventures to get us bogged down in.

You wouldn't need to 'Hold' the 'manufactured' 'islands'…the sad event in the Lebanon shows that you do not need nukes to make them 'go away' as viable bases! Cannot see many being keen on the duty, though!
Taking them…well, this speculation is 'What If?', we hope! ;)

Fair point on not needing to hold. I wonder what would happen if a man made island got hit with a few MOPs and MOABs. Would anything be left?

To approach and capture the bases safely would require the US military to pre-emptively destroy China's extensive and presumably dispersed A2AD network both on the mainland and the islands themselves. Hundreds of radars and command centers plus thousands of missile sites will probably have to be neutralized first.

Given Chinese systems are modified copies of increasingly discredited Russian systems such as S300*, I suspect they will not pose any significant threat to the US.

*And remember S400 is actually a re-badged S300PMU-3 and USA already has access to S300PMU-2s courtesy of Greece and S300PMU-1 courtesy of Slovakia and Bulgaria.

Also S400 range has been totally overstated as the 400 km range rockets have still not been developed and are not in service. It's actual range of 150-200 kilometres is based on an airline size target flying at 30,000 feet and against fighters is estimated as short as 20 km.

Hence Israel and increasingly Turkey bomb whatever they want over Syria regardless of layered Russian AD system or upgraded Syrian one.

S400 and S300 have not stopped one Israeli or Turkish strike so far, let alone shot down an aircraft!

link

Wait a decade or two and they'll be vanishing underwater!

Dude…!

Amicalement
Armand

Why waste the manpower? Useless casualties. We can neutralize the island outposts with drone and naval firepower.

Yes, there is no need to seize & hold them. As Rudy posted use firepower, i.e. USN, USAF, etc.

But what happens the morning after ?

Why would we do it anyway ?

There are many hawks here who think China's gotten too big for its britches and needs a good smack-down.

Yes I think they are … but no need to go to war with a nation that has 20% of the world's population. Plus they do have Nukes, lots of them. Handling things economically and politically is a not only a wiser but a safer move.

20% of the world's population

Manpower is largely an irrelevance in modern peer level war eg Israel versus the Arab world in the 1960s-70.

Even in 1980-88 Iraq managed to maintain parity with Iran which had a significantly larger population.

At some point the west must decide whether or not it lets China take over as the preeminent world power and potentially a global hegemon.

Numbers in a many situations still matter. E.g. Vietnam fighting a war of attrition vs. the population/birth rate. Of a 3d World country in jungle/mountainous terrain. Any nation that is willing to take heavy losses regardless is still a consideration.

As we were taught in the US Army everything comes down to terrain and situation. E.g. situation includes size/numbers of the enemy, as well as as equipment, etc.

I the case of the PRC, if God forbid, there is a nuclear exchange they have the numbers to take massive losses. Considering vs. the USA's population.

The series of Arab-Israelis Wars with the Israelis winning, in most cases. Was because of poor Arab military performance on the battlefield. Verses superior leadership and tactics for the Israelis.

In the Iran-Iraq war both sides demonstrated poor military tactics and expertise.

Number may mean little in some cases. However still forces the enemy has to deploy and/or a population to draw from cannot be dismissed.

In the Korean War, the fact that the US/UN destroyed most of the PRC's forces they sent across the Yalu. To support their Communist North Korean Brothers in the winter of '50. The US knew that was a drop in the bucket based on the numbers that they could deploy/draw from. And the PRC did send more, many more, to replace the initial forces they lost. Resulting the war lasting another 2 years.

To ignore/disregard all factors when evaluating a possible enemy's capabilities, etc.,. Would be considered a report from an intel standpoint as poor or incomplete …

Vietnam is not really relevant. That was mainly a counter insurgency fought with one hand tied behind the US back (no invasion of North Vietnam allowed).

Korea was a similar instance – not WWIII and the Americans were again fighting with one hand tied behind their back – no nuclear attacks when US held absolute nuclear superiority, no conventional attacks on China etc etc.

Point about Middle East including Iraq-Iran showed that smaller countries could defeat in case Israel or in Iraq's case maintain a stalemate over a numerically superior enemy.

In a modern air-sea war, number of humans is an irrelevance. That is purely technological based warfare with complicated equipment being used by highly trained equipment. In fact naval warfare has always been this.

You might be able to form an infantry unit by doling out AK-47s to a bunch of civilians and then have them perform some useful role such as stalling the enemy, but it doesn't work like that in naval or aerial warfare

The time taken to equip and train such formations is huge. It was in WWII as well but longer now. And even Russian/Chinese equipment these days is far more complicated than in 1950 when you could give someone rudimentary training in a MiG--15 and hope to god they don't lose control and crash before they got shot down by an F-86!

Where China's manpower comes into play is a long protracted war and especially in conjunction with their industrial power – in essence this is the position of the USA in 1941-45.

Already they can build naval ships faster than US and have far more civilian ship building capacity than the US and Europe combined (thank you deregulation and "free trade" whereby moron westerners ruin their own industries by letting government sponsored third worlders with horrible labour rights take over).

handling things economically and politically is a not only a wiser but a safer move.

Forgot to mention – this is not working. Unlike the Soviets, the Chinese play a massive role in the global economy. Economic might is true power.

Politically – again how? Prey the Chinese become democrats over night?

Their economic might means that Western alliances are weakened, if not crippled. Eg South Korea didn't buy a missile defence system because China threatened it economically. The Australians don't want to engage in Freedom of Navigation Ops because they don't wan't to be hurt economically. Old US allies like Philippines and Thailand slowly fall under Beijing's sway.

Various western countries including Britain were having vocal debates over how much do they let the Chinese control their 5G communications network. Some like Britain and Australia have banned Chinese companies from participating yet others in Asia and Europe will not do the same.

The "safer" move is capitulation.

It's like the idiots who thought they could contain Hitler and promised "peace in our time."

And the longer that the west waits to make any kind of proactive move, the more powerful the increasingly fascist Chinese People's Republic gets.

The US needs to act sooner rather than later, lest the 22nd century or even the second half of the 21st century become Pax China.

Have to disagree with you on many points. Regardless … an all out war with the PRC would be quite a disaster for much of the world.

We discussed similarly here – TMP link

Economic might is true power.

Agreed … and the US is trying to use that, along with getting many other nations to do the same. Geopolitically that is referred to as "soft" power. No real loss of blood or treasure …

In a modern air-sea war, number of humans is an irrelevance.

Disagree … You need numbers to build the equipment and bodies to man that equipment. Modern warfare has not yet come down to drones, AI, etc.

A weapon is only as good as the troops/crew that man it. At least for now and in the near future, AFAIK.

It's like the idiots who thought they could contain Hitler and promised "peace in our time."

Something that many don't know/understand, AFAIK. UK Intel told Chamberlin, et al, we are not ready to go to war with Germany. Basically to buy some time, so to speak.

Comparing 1938-39, etc. to 2020 is not totally a good fit IMO. E.g. no nukes then[until the US had only 2 to drop on Japan and end WWII in the PTO] vs. now … a lot of nukes. In a lot of locations.

The US needs to act sooner rather than later, lest the 22nd century or even the second half of the 21st century become Pax China.

So if not economically/geopolitically, are you saying we need to push the "button" ?

There are many hawks here who think China's gotten too big for its britches and needs a good smack-down.

I do, but I'm not willing to start a nuclear war over it. What is your solution/ideas ? Short of dropping nukes …

But living where you do, you may just survive a nuclear exchange ? Don't think Tasmania is even on anybody's target list ? Of course you might be effected by some fallout, etc. ? Here in the US … most of us are dead meat sooner if not too much later … ☠

I'm not among the hawks I mentioned earlier. I think the US and China will reach a sort of modus vivendi wherein both sides set limits and expectations much like that between the US and USSR during the latter half of the 20th Century. Any wars between the two will be economic or, if things get hot, by proxy only. When it comes to nuclear-armed superpowers, one cannot guarantee that any direct (non-proxy) conventional conflict will not escalate into the nuclear realm.

So I guess I'm with Legion on this one. And Legion, welcome back after your long self-imposed ban from this "CA" board. It's good to see old timers like you and "John the OFM" back.

I think the US and China will reach a sort of modus vivendi wherein both sides set limits and expectations much like that between the US and USSR during the latter half of the 20th Century

Yes IMO it is the only way this could workout, without losses across the board.

Money is power … the US and PRC have too much to lose economically at this point. It is all about the "bottom line" more so than ever before … 🤑🤑🤑🤑💰💴💵💶💷💸💳

ban from this "CA" board.

Thank you ! Thank you very much ! 😎