|
A sneak peek of part 21 of the 2023 story:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9qpNGoB.png) The worst place to be? aboard a neutral Taiwanese 747 in the middle of a massive mid-air/mid-sea BVR shootout -- that means all those hundreds of missiles are flying with only a radar lock on a presumed 'unfriendly airborne object', and without visual confirmation that the target is hostile. Confirmed neutrals are orange objects; unidentified objects are yellow objects; suspected and confirmed hostiles are red. Yeah, nobody is getting the benefit of the doubt today.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ySbxLNH.png) this was about 45 seconds after the first shot -- it looks like some USAF pilot thought that 747 was one of my tankers or bombers
I decided to simulate a future China vs US+Japan faceoff using Fleet Command + a modified version of the Naval Warfare Project 19.2 mod, and I'll be adding the results of the battle into part 21 (or 22) of the 2023 story.
To do so, I created a custom scenario for 'Operation Tiger' (one part of the larger War Plan Zodiac which forms the meat of the second half of the story.) Starting dispositions include multiple CVBGs for each side, with subs shadowing most of the carrier groups (but some subs mistakenly shadowing civilian cargo ships); land-based and naval-based aircraft in patrol positions or scrambling for takeoff, and American and Chinese bombers en route to launch points for standoff weaponry on each other's carriers or airbases.
The above screens demonstrate the chaos over the East China Sea about 26 minutes into World War Three. (The war starts at 0100 simulated hours--a minor goof on my part; it was supposed to start at 430 PM local time or about 1630 simulated hours... but we'll let it slide).
The results were depressing. Not only because both sides inflicted horrific casualties on the other--but because pretty much every single civilian ship and airplane on the map got shot down or sunk in ten minutes. I re-ran the simulation playing from the other side--it happened again. It seems the default carrier AI likes using the airport flight paths I set up between Shanghai and Tokyo, Taipei and Shanghai, and Taipei and Tokyo as living cover for their fighter sweeps and stealth bombing runs. It also seems AI sub commanders, by default, are trigger-happy mofos who will launch 533mm torpedoes at so much anything that farts into their passive sonar detectors. The custom scenario started with about 50 jetliners and 35 cargo ships... and ended with zero. So much for the Geneva Conventions.
Thinking about it, though, it fits with the general philosophy of naval warfare that I posited earlier: modern naval and air combat is all about using hiding amongst civilian traffic and shooting the living hell out of anything that so much resembles an enemy ship, sub, plane, or satellite, and doing that faster than the other guy. At least airbases are reasonably exempt from this characteristic in that their locations are generally known beforehand and they don't move. Unfortunately, if both sides disable GPS systems (entirely possible given cyberwarfare and ASAT missiles), all those wonderful precision guided 2000-lb bombs are going to be flying around blind through the urbanized Japanese home islands or Chinese east coast, looking for a long, straight stretch of asphalt with their backup guidance systems... without caring whether that stretch is an airstrip or a packed 8-lane highway.
Oh, and the entire battle/war was pretty much over in about an hour, and the standing orders I coded in escalated things automatically once the first shots had been fired (a very realistic assumption). I did a rough calculation of the dollar value of combat losses: about $22 billion. Assuming the world generates $50 trillion in GDP per year by 2023, then that comes out to about $5.7 billion in GDP per hour. So yeah, this one operation in a much larger war plan destroyed economic assets at 4x the rate of global GDP generation. And we haven't even gotten to how many innocent and not-so-innocent lives would be snuffed out by such a conflict.
I was going to wait until part 21/22 to touch on this theme, but I didn't want to bog down the action there too much. So I'll say it here: let us hope that our leaders do not ever descend to this level of madness, and let us all work towards a better world, lest we crucify ourselves on this cross of iron...
 
|
Oh cool, I really liked how you used some mods to try to simulate such a conflict  looks super legit for sure.
Pretty interesting stuff for sure, and the description you've written up is definitely reminiscent of that analogy you were making about war and gridiron football in the dark in one of your previous blogs iirc.
|
on the other hand it'll probably be great at reducing the ridiculously high Chinese property prices.
|
99% sure if china goes to war it will be to take the Middle East and all those oil reserves! Then a beam of light will strike a random Chinese soldier in Isreal and the tue messiah will be recognized. Then the US will hole up in Austrialia after getting pushed out of the Americas.
|
Yeah, that seems like a pretty fair assessment. That mod seems *really* interesting, I'm going to try and take a look at it.
|
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).
|
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).
RoE are either much more flexible than one might assume, or we haven't seen America in a real war for quite some time. Civilian casualties are pretty huge and almost unavoidable. Against China, they would pull out all stops and mistakes would be made. Consider a shit-ton of Chinese aircraft (thousands) suddenly drowning a radar system in red. Now consider how you would fight such a clusterfuck. Shooting each plane down one at a time would be very inefficient. It would make much more sense to bombard the group and hit multiple targets. RoE don't really apply in a scenario like this, just like they didn't really apply during WW2 bombing of German cities. I have to agree that if I was in a Taiwanese passenger plane over the upper-mid-Pacific and got wind that a war was breaking out between China and the U.S. I would probably shit myself.
|
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.
|
|
|
One thing that the US should do is get rid of the bomber arm of the triad. In a situation where a high intensity conventional shooting war broke out between CH and JP/US, over something like taiwan or some little rock, you wouldnt want CH worrying that B-2s taking off could be a signal of a Possbile nuclear strike.
|
On March 13 2013 15:32 Shady Sands wrote:
It also seems AI sub commanders, by default, are trigger-happy mofos who will launch 533mm torpedoes at so much anything that farts into their passive sonar detectors.
ahaha AI is a crapshoot
|
The safest place to be in this scenario is probably New Zealand. No one is likely to go out of their way to hit it, and it's relatively well protected from possible fall-out in the event of a nuclear attack. (Wind patterns and such.) If the US, Japan, and China go to war, I think Southeast Asia is a horrible place to be.
In terms of other possibilities - it gives China a chance to finally enforce their claim on Taiwan (Mainland China, I mean), and also smack Japan for grievances dating to before WWII.
As far as RoE - the US uses them, but if such a scenario as posited exists I doubt they would use the more "friendly" RoE. This could be the first "real" conventional bit of warfare for the US since WWII - the closest I can think of since then would be Korea or Vietnam, and in both cases the US still had great technological superiority. We may still have an edge (at least, until Japan builds and weaponizes a super mech) but a lot of our components are made in... Southeast Asia. You see where this would be a problem... While the US and Japan might try to minimize civilian casualties, I believe China would be less concerned - and in the event of this conflict being fought in the same context as a World War, all three would consider some civilian losses "acceptable". Oh, and I think that, in reality, if such a conflict loomed on the horizon, you would see a mass exodus of civilian shipping, diversion of civilian aircraft, and a general reduction in trade driving both. Such an event would not spring up overnight, and even with current US refocusing on the region in general moving that much metal would take time for all parties.
Curiousity - did you take into account the current state of Chinese carrier capabilities? They have one partially refurbished CV of Russian origin at the moment, although they are working on domestic production. I think it will be fully sea-worthy sometime around 2017. (I could, obviously, be wrong, but the only other Chinese CV I can think of is an amusement park/hotel. I don't get access to Jane's at home, sadly.)
|
Sucks to be a civilian, it's time to go to Antartica I guess. :p
|
On March 14 2013 18:20 felisconcolori wrote:
The safest place to be in this scenario is probably New Zealand. No one is likely to go out of their way to hit it, and it's relatively well protected from possible fall-out in the event of a nuclear attack. (Wind patterns and such.) If the US, Japan, and China go to war, I think Southeast Asia is a horrible place to be.
New Zealand looks safe ya, SEA is pretty much ggnore!
Greenland would be a safe place to stay! Inuits gonna teach u well, best @ hide&seek!
On March 14 2013 20:41 Lysteria wrote:
Sucks to be a civilian, it's time to go to Antartica I guess. :p
Poor whales! >_<
|
hey i just finished reading the entire story up till now, i just wanted to say this is probably the best bit of modern geo-political/warfare fiction i've read in a long while. I really enjoyed the post about naval fleet combat (im curious what were your sources for modern CVN tactics? - ive read some on WW2 carrier operations but they were a lot more rudimentary compared to the modern signal rich environment).
One thing though, is the details in the flight combat in the first post don't line up completely with what i know about modern fighter combat. If you had a lot of spare time (HA!) F4.0AF or another high fidelity modern flight sim would help you with that.
Anyway I just wanted to thank you for a few hours of excellent, free entertainment and some serious food-for-thought
|
On March 14 2013 18:20 felisconcolori wrote:
The safest place to be in this scenario is probably New Zealand. No one is likely to go out of their way to hit it, and it's relatively well protected from possible fall-out in the event of a nuclear attack. (Wind patterns and such.) If the US, Japan, and China go to war, I think Southeast Asia is a horrible place to be.
SE Asia/Taiwan/Korea is relatively safe if you're not in the air or on the water.
In terms of other possibilities - it gives China a chance to finally enforce their claim on Taiwan (Mainland China, I mean), and also smack Japan for grievances dating to before WWII.
The root of Sino-Japanese conflict goes back further than WWII--between China and Japan, if either nation-state tries to become 'absolutely secure', it by default will seek regional hegemony (whether as part of an alliance with the US or not). Regional hegemony automatically means the other state becomes subordinate (e.g. China becomes Japan's bitch or vice versa), which domestic politics won't allow. Ergo, both sides are locked into a zero-sum security competition that's been playing out over the past 100+ years... much as England and France (the best analogy between China and Japan I can think of) were locked into a similar competition from the Anglo-Saxon invasions to the formation of the Entente Cordiale.
As far as RoE - the US uses them, but if such a scenario as posited exists I doubt they would use the more "friendly" RoE. This could be the first "real" conventional bit of warfare for the US since WWII - the closest I can think of since then would be Korea or Vietnam, and in both cases the US still had great technological superiority. We may still have an edge (at least, until Japan builds and weaponizes a super mech) but a lot of our components are made in... Southeast Asia. You see where this would be a problem... While the US and Japan might try to minimize civilian casualties, I believe China would be less concerned - and in the event of this conflict being fought in the same context as a World War, all three would consider some civilian losses "acceptable". Oh, and I think that, in reality, if such a conflict loomed on the horizon, you would see a mass exodus of civilian shipping, diversion of civilian aircraft, and a general reduction in trade driving both. Such an event would not spring up overnight, and even with current US refocusing on the region in general moving that much metal would take time for all parties.
I did model the reduction in civilian shipping--normally, those sealanes are literally the busiest on Earth in terms of gross tonnage, and the air lanes are second only to intra-EU air lanes in terms of airplane density per 10,000 sq km. The 50 civilian airliners and 35 cargo ships represent a small fraction of normal, non-holiday traffic. An unannounced war would be truly nightmarish--in that case, it would not be surprising for more than 50% of the thousands of missiles fired by both sides to hit civilian shipping or aircraft... for the simple reason that most military ships and planes are stealhy while most civilian ships and planes aren't, and most missile radars behave like rabid bloodhounds that go after anything in the search box that flies without an IFF.
As for proper ROE--even in times of relative peace or simply peacetime 'tensions' we've seen terrible incidents like the Aegis cruiser USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian airliner in 1988 or Soviet interceptors downing a Korean airliner in 1983.
Curiousity - did you take into account the current state of Chinese carrier capabilities? They have one partially refurbished CV of Russian origin at the moment, although they are working on domestic production. I think it will be fully sea-worthy sometime around 2017. (I could, obviously, be wrong, but the only other Chinese CV I can think of is an amusement park/hotel. I don't get access to Jane's at home, sadly.)
The story takes place around 2023, and the consensus in the military intelligence community seems to be that China will have between two and four CVBGs by then--or between one to three new carriers, possibly CATOBAR but most likely conventionally powered.
|
On March 15 2013 10:07 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 18:20 felisconcolori wrote:
The safest place to be in this scenario is probably New Zealand. No one is likely to go out of their way to hit it, and it's relatively well protected from possible fall-out in the event of a nuclear attack. (Wind patterns and such.) If the US, Japan, and China go to war, I think Southeast Asia is a horrible place to be. SE Asia/Taiwan/Korea is relatively safe if you're not in the air or on the water. Show nested quote +In terms of other possibilities - it gives China a chance to finally enforce their claim on Taiwan (Mainland China, I mean), and also smack Japan for grievances dating to before WWII. The root of Sino-Japanese conflict goes back further than WWII--between China and Japan, if either nation-state tries to become 'absolutely secure', it by default will seek regional hegemony (whether as part of an alliance with the US or not). Regional hegemony automatically means the other state becomes subordinate (e.g. China becomes Japan's bitch or vice versa), which domestic politics won't allow. Ergo, both sides are locked into a zero-sum security competition that's been playing out over the past 100+ years... much as England and France (the best analogy between China and Japan I can think of) were locked into a similar competition from the Anglo-Saxon invasions to the formation of the Entente Cordiale.
The rest of your post was pretty spectacular. This part is too, but what I was thinking of here is...
If China is intending to go up against Japan and the US (and then by extension, possibly NATO sans Russia) I don't see them treading lightly against less well equipped states with much less in terms of military deterrence. I can see it starting quite easily with telling Kim Jong Two (or whomever is in N. Korea at that time) the they've just asked to join China, carrying out a complete takeover of the Korean peninsula (The US troops stationed there are, by their own admission, a "speed bump" if China were to go in on the ground), and then knocking over Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia. They could do it purely with ground forces, leaving their air and naval power mostly free to posture and give them time to consolidate. Japan obviously would be a target (because, yes, they've been fighting each other since before the Mongul horde attempted to invade Japan by sea) - in this case, current Chinese domestic political atmosphere seems to be trending towards thinking it's a good idea.
Any nation which is influenced by domestic opinion is likely to tread lightly on the idea of kicking off what very well would end up as World War III due to treaty obligations and the likely failure of the UN as a relevant body. In China, it would be less of an issue because of the controls in place although it could be an issue depending on the new government coming in - if it remains conservative, gets more conservative, or is more reform oriented.
|
On March 14 2013 18:20 felisconcolori wrote:
Curiousity - did you take into account the current state of Chinese carrier capabilities? They have one partially refurbished CV of Russian origin at the moment, although they are working on domestic production. I think it will be fully sea-worthy sometime around 2017. (I could, obviously, be wrong, but the only other Chinese CV I can think of is an amusement park/hotel. I don't get access to Jane's at home, sadly.)
The Liaoning is fully functional and in currently in service. The "floating casino in Macao" is the Varyag refurbished into the Liaoning. The PRC lied.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20483716
|
On March 15 2013 12:08 felisconcolori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 10:07 Shady Sands wrote:On March 14 2013 18:20 felisconcolori wrote:
The safest place to be in this scenario is probably New Zealand. No one is likely to go out of their way to hit it, and it's relatively well protected from possible fall-out in the event of a nuclear attack. (Wind patterns and such.) If the US, Japan, and China go to war, I think Southeast Asia is a horrible place to be. SE Asia/Taiwan/Korea is relatively safe if you're not in the air or on the water. In terms of other possibilities - it gives China a chance to finally enforce their claim on Taiwan (Mainland China, I mean), and also smack Japan for grievances dating to before WWII. The root of Sino-Japanese conflict goes back further than WWII--between China and Japan, if either nation-state tries to become 'absolutely secure', it by default will seek regional hegemony (whether as part of an alliance with the US or not). Regional hegemony automatically means the other state becomes subordinate (e.g. China becomes Japan's bitch or vice versa), which domestic politics won't allow. Ergo, both sides are locked into a zero-sum security competition that's been playing out over the past 100+ years... much as England and France (the best analogy between China and Japan I can think of) were locked into a similar competition from the Anglo-Saxon invasions to the formation of the Entente Cordiale. The rest of your post was pretty spectacular. This part is too, but what I was thinking of here is... If China is intending to go up against Japan and the US (and then by extension, possibly NATO sans Russia) I don't see them treading lightly against less well equipped states with much less in terms of military deterrence. I can see it starting quite easily with telling Kim Jong Two (or whomever is in N. Korea at that time) the they've just asked to join China, carrying out a complete takeover of the Korean peninsula (The US troops stationed there are, by their own admission, a "speed bump" if China were to go in on the ground), and then knocking over Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia. They could do it purely with ground forces, leaving their air and naval power mostly free to posture and give them time to consolidate. Japan obviously would be a target (because, yes, they've been fighting each other since before the Mongul horde attempted to invade Japan by sea) - in this case, current Chinese domestic political atmosphere seems to be trending towards thinking it's a good idea. Any nation which is influenced by domestic opinion is likely to tread lightly on the idea of kicking off what very well would end up as World War III due to treaty obligations and the likely failure of the UN as a relevant body. In China, it would be less of an issue because of the controls in place although it could be an issue depending on the new government coming in - if it remains conservative, gets more conservative, or is more reform oriented.
The problem with this is that the US and Japan's economic ties with those nations you are presuming that the PLA can "knock over" would trigger a response from both US and Japan. Not to mention that South Korea has a security treaty with the US, and those forces that admit that they are a "speed bump" are exactly that: the intention is that a mobilized US response off the Peninsula would wipe out any invasion force with time.
Modern warfare behooves a combined arms approach. There is no way that the PLA ground forces ALONE would "knock over" Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, The Philippines, etc. It's well known: NEVER fight a land war in Asia.
As long as the US 7th Fleet and 5th Air Force is remotely nearby, China isn't going to do anything to those smaller nations.
|
On March 15 2013 12:08 felisconcolori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 10:07 Shady Sands wrote:On March 14 2013 18:20 felisconcolori wrote:
The safest place to be in this scenario is probably New Zealand. No one is likely to go out of their way to hit it, and it's relatively well protected from possible fall-out in the event of a nuclear attack. (Wind patterns and such.) If the US, Japan, and China go to war, I think Southeast Asia is a horrible place to be. SE Asia/Taiwan/Korea is relatively safe if you're not in the air or on the water. In terms of other possibilities - it gives China a chance to finally enforce their claim on Taiwan (Mainland China, I mean), and also smack Japan for grievances dating to before WWII. The root of Sino-Japanese conflict goes back further than WWII--between China and Japan, if either nation-state tries to become 'absolutely secure', it by default will seek regional hegemony (whether as part of an alliance with the US or not). Regional hegemony automatically means the other state becomes subordinate (e.g. China becomes Japan's bitch or vice versa), which domestic politics won't allow. Ergo, both sides are locked into a zero-sum security competition that's been playing out over the past 100+ years... much as England and France (the best analogy between China and Japan I can think of) were locked into a similar competition from the Anglo-Saxon invasions to the formation of the Entente Cordiale. The rest of your post was pretty spectacular. This part is too, but what I was thinking of here is... If China is intending to go up against Japan and the US (and then by extension, possibly NATO sans Russia) I don't see them treading lightly against less well equipped states with much less in terms of military deterrence. I can see it starting quite easily with telling Kim Jong Two (or whomever is in N. Korea at that time) the they've just asked to join China, carrying out a complete takeover of the Korean peninsula (The US troops stationed there are, by their own admission, a "speed bump" if China were to go in on the ground), and then knocking over Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia. They could do it purely with ground forces, leaving their air and naval power mostly free to posture and give them time to consolidate. Japan obviously would be a target (because, yes, they've been fighting each other since before the Mongul horde attempted to invade Japan by sea) - in this case, current Chinese domestic political atmosphere seems to be trending towards thinking it's a good idea. Any nation which is influenced by domestic opinion is likely to tread lightly on the idea of kicking off what very well would end up as World War III due to treaty obligations and the likely failure of the UN as a relevant body. In China, it would be less of an issue because of the controls in place although it could be an issue depending on the new government coming in - if it remains conservative, gets more conservative, or is more reform oriented.
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.
|
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
