|
On March 15 2013 13:47 Shady Sands wrote:
Asia littoral isn't really a Chinese strategic objective; China already exercises implicit hegemony through bilateral economic ties and huge levels of trade. Why shoot everybody when you can make money with them?
The issue with Japan is that in spite of Sino-Japanese bilateral trade pretty much keeping their economy afloat, Japanese elites remain stubbornly wedded to the idea that they, with America, should be the leaders of the Asia-Pac region, or at least first among equals in a US-led alliance system, much as the UK was in Europe for four decades. If they could just bend over and make nice with China, it would be so much easier, but alas, it seems like they'd rather do things like pray at a shrine for a bunch of class-A war criminals instead.
This is just not the case. China is in no way an "implicit hegemon" over SE asian countries. While it may hold significant economic power over SK, Vietnam, Philippines, and Japan, these countries all are militarily reorienting themselves against CN. Additionally, besides an invasion of Taiwan, CN currently has no hard power projection at all. The most CN can do is harass with its navy. Besides a defensive action, CN CANNOT possibly conduct offensive operations with the US around anywhere besides taiwan in the near term.
I've seen this in your writing quite often, but there is no way the rest of SE asia will consent to a hegemonic CN if it can avoid it. As long as the US, India, Japan, and Russia all maintain relatively comparable militaries, there will be plenty of room for the SE asian smalls to maneuver independently from China.
An East Asian Concert of powers is more likely than Chinese Hegemony, at least for the foreseeable mid term.
|
On March 15 2013 14:43 bumwithagun wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 13:47 Shady Sands wrote:
Asia littoral isn't really a Chinese strategic objective; China already exercises implicit hegemony through bilateral economic ties and huge levels of trade. Why shoot everybody when you can make money with them?
The issue with Japan is that in spite of Sino-Japanese bilateral trade pretty much keeping their economy afloat, Japanese elites remain stubbornly wedded to the idea that they, with America, should be the leaders of the Asia-Pac region, or at least first among equals in a US-led alliance system, much as the UK was in Europe for four decades. If they could just bend over and make nice with China, it would be so much easier, but alas, it seems like they'd rather do things like pray at a shrine for a bunch of class-A war criminals instead. This is just not the case. China is in no way an "implicit hegemon" over SE asian countries. While it may hold significant economic power over SK, Vietnam, Philippines, and Japan, these countries all are militarily reorienting themselves against CN. Additionally, besides an invasion of Taiwan, CN currently has no hard power projection at all. The most CN can do is harass with its navy. Besides a defensive action, CN CANNOT possibly conduct offensive operations with the US around anywhere besides taiwan in the near term. I've seen this in your writing quite often, but there is no way the rest of SE asia will consent to a hegemonic CN if it can avoid it. As long as the US, India, Japan, and Russia all maintain relatively comparable militaries, there will be plenty of room for the SE asian smalls to maneuver independently from China. An East Asian Concert of powers is more likely than Chinese Hegemony, at least for the foreseeable mid term.
The problem is that SK, Vietnam, and other states in the region (with the potential exception of Japan) simply do not have the standing military to prevent a fast action by China, which maintains an extremely large standing military force. The US has logistical problems, even with our technological superiority in individual arms. Quantity has a quality all of its own, and in looking at the scenario as an all out offensive, the US simply couldn't react swiftly enough to prevent a military action by China. We can respond, certainly, but it will not be a swift and sure response. In the current atmosphere, there would even be a fair amount of foot dragging in the political sphere. There are, I'm quite sure, contingency plans to deal with nearly everything. But short of the kind of response one of the first ladies came up with (during an exercise in which somehow she wound up with the authority, she authorized a full launch of nuclear weapons rather than the suggested measured response to a limited first strike from the then USSR) it would take time to mobilize the US military and focus it where it needs to be, rather than the current dispersal of forces. (I'm thinking of the response of the United States at the start of WWII, when the powers that be knew full well there would be a war but were looking to Europe rather than the Pacific.)
|
On March 15 2013 17:23 felisconcolori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 14:43 bumwithagun wrote:On March 15 2013 13:47 Shady Sands wrote:
Asia littoral isn't really a Chinese strategic objective; China already exercises implicit hegemony through bilateral economic ties and huge levels of trade. Why shoot everybody when you can make money with them?
The issue with Japan is that in spite of Sino-Japanese bilateral trade pretty much keeping their economy afloat, Japanese elites remain stubbornly wedded to the idea that they, with America, should be the leaders of the Asia-Pac region, or at least first among equals in a US-led alliance system, much as the UK was in Europe for four decades. If they could just bend over and make nice with China, it would be so much easier, but alas, it seems like they'd rather do things like pray at a shrine for a bunch of class-A war criminals instead. This is just not the case. China is in no way an "implicit hegemon" over SE asian countries. While it may hold significant economic power over SK, Vietnam, Philippines, and Japan, these countries all are militarily reorienting themselves against CN. Additionally, besides an invasion of Taiwan, CN currently has no hard power projection at all. The most CN can do is harass with its navy. Besides a defensive action, CN CANNOT possibly conduct offensive operations with the US around anywhere besides taiwan in the near term. I've seen this in your writing quite often, but there is no way the rest of SE asia will consent to a hegemonic CN if it can avoid it. As long as the US, India, Japan, and Russia all maintain relatively comparable militaries, there will be plenty of room for the SE asian smalls to maneuver independently from China. An East Asian Concert of powers is more likely than Chinese Hegemony, at least for the foreseeable mid term. The problem is that SK, Vietnam, and other states in the region (with the potential exception of Japan) simply do not have the standing military to prevent a fast action by China, which maintains an extremely large standing military force. The US has logistical problems, even with our technological superiority in individual arms. Quantity has a quality all of its own, and in looking at the scenario as an all out offensive, the US simply couldn't react swiftly enough to prevent a military action by China. We can respond, certainly, but it will not be a swift and sure response. In the current atmosphere, there would even be a fair amount of foot dragging in the political sphere. There are, I'm quite sure, contingency plans to deal with nearly everything. But short of the kind of response one of the first ladies came up with (during an exercise in which somehow she wound up with the authority, she authorized a full launch of nuclear weapons rather than the suggested measured response to a limited first strike from the then USSR) it would take time to mobilize the US military and focus it where it needs to be, rather than the current dispersal of forces. (I'm thinking of the response of the United States at the start of WWII, when the powers that be knew full well there would be a war but were looking to Europe rather than the Pacific.)
How the heck does the first lady wind up with launch authority?
--
Militarily, SK, Vietnam, and the Phillippines always been oriented somewhat against China. IMO, what bumwithagun sees is just a fading echo of past conflicts, not some new national security policy from those countries. Japan is a different matter, since Japan has relied on its alliance with the United States to remain relevant in the region ever since China eclipsed it economically, and there is no better way to for to Japan strengthen the US-Japan alliance than by cranking up tensions with China.
As for hard power capabilities--I completely agree that China's present-day military is in no way capable of exerting regional pressure on the scale of the Banana Wars which the US engaged in between 1898 and 1933. That doesn't mean, however, that China won't be able to get there. In that world, would the US be willing to shoulder an exorbitant cost to balance China? Remember, due to the loss of strength gradient it's always easier for China to project power into the region than it is for the US to counterbalance it.
--
The other thing to remember is that Chinese influence or gains don't need to come from military force. Trade with SE Asian countries, soft loans into infrastructure, and the Chinese diaspora afford China both natural resources and a degree of economic influence that can be exerted in ways far less visibly than, say, USN gunboat diplomacy (I mean, power projection). It's there--it's just that most people don't see it.
|
On March 14 2013 02:24 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 22:58 phANT1m wrote:
So this looks pretty cool and that but does It have built in ROE? As far as I know especially the USA are bound to the ROE and don't usually stray from it.
But it is an interesting case that is presented nevertheless. I think I got an awesome place to be, all the way in South Africa far from the bombs and bullets of that war ( then again I do have to contend with the bullets in my country).
Speaking of SA, my relatives over there seem to believe that China is making big moves in the region. I hear they've got quite the presence in Africa in general. My understanding of this is that China is able to exploit a lot of natural wealth and that a war of this magnitude would affect even you.
So0 yeah trade wise they have a fairly increasing presence here. Read news that they are expanding fast throughout Africa.
Seems to be their strategy is to go into zones (Africa/Afghanistan/etc) develop infrastructure in exchange for access to resources. Heard thats what they been doing in Afghanistan and Zimbabwe (i think). And it probably goes better then the US approach of boots on the ground (which i am not saying is wrong) where US get the negative image.
|
can you find out where the worst place to be if nkorea and us ever went to war is?
i wanna know if im in it
|
On March 16 2013 01:39 evilfatsh1t wrote:
can you find out where the worst place to be if nkorea and us ever went to war is?
i wanna know if im in it
lol
|
On March 16 2013 01:39 evilfatsh1t wrote:
can you find out where the worst place to be if nkorea and us ever went to war is?
i wanna know if im in it
The NK airforce would likely be annihilated in the opening hour of such a war. This leaves ground delivery systems as your primary concern. We can split these into SRBMs (short-range ballistic missiles), tube artillery (traditional howitzers/mortars), and rocket artillery (e.g. Katyushas).
Most NK SRBMs are primitive, which means they don't have the terminal flight profiles and high re-entry speeds necessary to dodge 90s-era and 00s-era SAMs like the S-300, HQ-9, or MIM-104 Patriot. The US, Russia, and China all now field even more advanced SAM systems, so you don't need to worry about NK delivery systems other than tube or rocket artillery. Tube artillery has a max range of about 25km. The longest-ranged rocket artillery in the NK arsenal is likely a derivative of the BM21 Grad, which has a max range of about 40 km with the latest Chinese or Russian rocket ammo. NK could have BM-27 Uragans or BM-30 Smerchs, in which case the engagement envelope extends to about 70 or 90km from the NK border. Although the KPA would be expected to press south of the DMZ in select areas, it's unlikely their artillery would be able to move past the obstacles of the DMZ and re-deploy in the face of the ROKAF/USAF. Ergo, you're reasonably safe so long as you're further than 90km from the DMZ.
Realistically, you will be safe even closer than that, given that the NK military is shambolic, and if they did go to war, it would quickly turn into the greatest slaughter seen this side of the Persian Gulf--for them. For the South Korean and US Army, it would be a straightforward 72-hour 'fire and movement' exercise to the Yalu... unless the PLA decides to get involved, in which case your best bet is to get on the next plane for Los Angeles (not Tokyo--China will attack Japan if it tries to help out the DPRK, since many USAF and USN assets are based there), assuming any South Korean airports are still intact from the Chinese doctrine of neutralizing a superior air force via salvos of hundreds of cruise and ballistic missiles aimed at anything that an airplane can take off from.
|
Eh, America might just pull off a WW2 strategy, and nuke the living hell out of China. That would end the war pretty quickly.
|
On March 16 2013 03:56 mastergriggy wrote:
Eh, America might just pull off a WW2 strategy, and nuke the living hell out of China. That would end the war pretty quickly.
Sure, the war would end quickly--for everyone. China has enough road-mobile nukes to do a countervalue strike on 75% of the US urban population.
|
On March 16 2013 02:45 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 01:39 evilfatsh1t wrote:
can you find out where the worst place to be if nkorea and us ever went to war is?
i wanna know if im in it The NK airforce would likely be annihilated in the opening hour of such a war. This leaves ground delivery systems as your primary concern. We can split these into SRBMs (short-range ballistic missiles), tube artillery (traditional howitzers/mortars), and rocket artillery (e.g. Katyushas). Most NK SRBMs are primitive, which means they don't have the terminal flight profiles and high re-entry speeds necessary to dodge 90s-era and 00s-era SAMs like the S-300, HQ-9, or MIM-104 Patriot. The US, Russia, and China all now field even more advanced SAM systems, so you don't need to worry about NK delivery systems other than tube or rocket artillery. Tube artillery has a max range of about 25km. The longest-ranged rocket artillery in the NK arsenal is likely a derivative of the BM21 Grad, which has a max range of about 40 km with the latest Chinese or Russian rocket ammo. NK could have BM-27 Uragans or BM-30 Smerchs, in which case the engagement envelope extends to about 70 or 90km from the NK border. Although the KPA would be expected to press south of the DMZ in select areas, it's unlikely their artillery would be able to move past the obstacles of the DMZ and re-deploy in the face of the ROKAF/USAF. Ergo, you're reasonably safe so long as you're further than 90km from the DMZ. Realistically, you will be safe even closer than that, given that the NK military is shambolic, and if they did go to war, it would quickly turn into the greatest slaughter seen this side of the Persian Gulf--for them. For the South Korean and US Army, it would be a straightforward 72-hour 'fire and movement' exercise to the Yalu... unless the PLA decides to get involved, in which case your best bet is to get on the next plane for Los Angeles (not Tokyo--China will attack Japan if it tries to help out the DPRK, since many USAF and USN assets are based there), assuming any South Korean airports are still intact from the Chinese doctrine of neutralizing a superior air force via salvos of hundreds of cruise and ballistic missiles aimed at anything that an airplane can take off from.
what happens in the case when they do have a working nuclear weapon and they go "yoloswag" and throw it at us
|
On March 16 2013 12:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 02:45 Shady Sands wrote:On March 16 2013 01:39 evilfatsh1t wrote:
can you find out where the worst place to be if nkorea and us ever went to war is?
i wanna know if im in it The NK airforce would likely be annihilated in the opening hour of such a war. This leaves ground delivery systems as your primary concern. We can split these into SRBMs (short-range ballistic missiles), tube artillery (traditional howitzers/mortars), and rocket artillery (e.g. Katyushas). Most NK SRBMs are primitive, which means they don't have the terminal flight profiles and high re-entry speeds necessary to dodge 90s-era and 00s-era SAMs like the S-300, HQ-9, or MIM-104 Patriot. The US, Russia, and China all now field even more advanced SAM systems, so you don't need to worry about NK delivery systems other than tube or rocket artillery. Tube artillery has a max range of about 25km. The longest-ranged rocket artillery in the NK arsenal is likely a derivative of the BM21 Grad, which has a max range of about 40 km with the latest Chinese or Russian rocket ammo. NK could have BM-27 Uragans or BM-30 Smerchs, in which case the engagement envelope extends to about 70 or 90km from the NK border. Although the KPA would be expected to press south of the DMZ in select areas, it's unlikely their artillery would be able to move past the obstacles of the DMZ and re-deploy in the face of the ROKAF/USAF. Ergo, you're reasonably safe so long as you're further than 90km from the DMZ. Realistically, you will be safe even closer than that, given that the NK military is shambolic, and if they did go to war, it would quickly turn into the greatest slaughter seen this side of the Persian Gulf--for them. For the South Korean and US Army, it would be a straightforward 72-hour 'fire and movement' exercise to the Yalu... unless the PLA decides to get involved, in which case your best bet is to get on the next plane for Los Angeles (not Tokyo--China will attack Japan if it tries to help out the DPRK, since many USAF and USN assets are based there), assuming any South Korean airports are still intact from the Chinese doctrine of neutralizing a superior air force via salvos of hundreds of cruise and ballistic missiles aimed at anything that an airplane can take off from. what happens in the case when they do have a working nuclear weapon and they go "yoloswag" and throw it at us
Define 'working nuclear weapon'. If you're talking about the five-ton device that leveled Hiroshima (e.g. Little Boy), yes NK probably has a similar device; no, you don't have much to fear: NK does not have a rocket that can carry the thing, get fueled up undetected, launch at some place in SK, and survive mid-flight and terminal phases for anyone to be worried. As for planes that can carry it, NK does have about 40 Mig-29s that could in theory carry such a weapon, but their survivability against modern IADS and CAP would be marginal at best.
If you're talking miniaturized nukes (I define 'miniaturized' loosely here--we'll just say under 1,000 kg per 20kt of yield) then NK does not have the electronics or precision machining to create such a weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
