Slitherine

quote:

The next thing that I can see is a complete restriction of un-taxed shipping in the area, and a restriction of all outside military vessels coming within the territorial waters of Chinese land. I can see them even trying to extend the limits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese
I agree, so what makes you think that they wouldn't use military vessels?

quote:


They could easily intercept any vessel in the area (similar) to Coast Guard units, and essentially "hold" the ships for ransom until the required tariff is paid. If this tariff is somewhat reasonable, and the companies "need" to do business in the area, then the tariff is a great way to supplement China's war effort, without having to fire a shot. The aggrieved nations would likely pay the tariff (protection money) to continue to do business in the area, and because they don't have the militaristic means of going toe-to-toe with China.

quote:

Additionally, the fact that the US will not choose to use weapons, thereby resorting to more "diplomacy" to avoid a fight, means that China once again looks superior, while the US again looks weak. The US can publicly "claim" that "diplomacy" once again avoided war but, in the end, China got exactly what they wanted again, looking superior, didn't need to fight, and managed to thumb their proverbial noses at the rest of the "diplomatic" world because they were once again the biggest bully on the block.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

Now, I guess that we have reached the point where I disagree with you.

China could make a fortune by forcing ALL entrants coming into the SCS pay a tariff to conduct business with any other country, just by passing through these waters.

You say that the deterrent is the US, but I don't buy that any more, and I don't think that China is afraid, either. If they were afraid, then they never would have attempted to seize these atolls from the nations that rightfully owned them, and that would have stood down if challenged by the US. Instead, the US, using diplomacy, did nothing, and it's now too late.

In my opinion, China will soon have complete control of their objective, the Nine Dash Line, and then they will be in position to do all of the things that I said.

The standing line is that the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists, but that simply isn't true. The Obama Administration literally gave money to Iran to keep them from building nuclear weapons. That's not diplomacy. That's idiocy. All Iran did was accept the money and continue to build their weapons.

So, if the US is too afraid to even effectively deal with Iran, then they are way too scared to go against China in the SCS. The Chinese know it, too. So, each day China gets stronger in the area, while the US gets weaker.

Again, this is just my opinion which happens to differ from yours.

Doug

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
All that would seriously harm Chinese business interests. If they're going to hurt the bottom line for global trade, they'll almost certainly see the globe act to hurt their bottom line in turn. It would hurt China a lot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese
China doesn't always do things to actually accomplish a specific goal or objective. China often does something as a simple "display of strength." If they think that they can get by with something, and make the US appear weak at the same time, then they will do it, even if it doesn't make perfect sense.

quote:

Make no mistake, when China has the fortifications in place, and the resources (their aircraft carriers) fully operational, they will impose a tariff on all ships passing through the area. It's only a matter of time. Not only do they gain financially, but they gain by being recognized as a nation that can stand up to the US, defying its power, thereby making China appear much stronger. It's as much about appearance as it is about actual strength.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

In a short period of time (again, not specific), they "could" impose tariffs on nations intending to do business with them, or any other nation, that must transit through the SCS. This "could" be used as a source of income. In fact, under the proper circumstances, I could even see the US paying these tariffs if they thought that by refraining to do so would only hurt their own economy. These tariffs actually play right into the hands of "diplomacy", similar to the US's approach toward thwarting the nuclear effort in Iran.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TyeeBanzai

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

In a short period of time (again, not specific), they "could" impose tariffs on nations intending to do business with them, or any other nation, that must transit through the SCS. This "could" be used as a source of income. In fact, under the proper circumstances, I could even see the US paying these tariffs if they thought that by refraining to do so would only hurt their own economy. These tariffs actually play right into the hands of "diplomacy", similar to the US's approach toward thwarting the nuclear effort in Iran.

I personally think this day will come in the early 2030s. China needs only a few more things- field the DF-41 en mass, field their J-20s as they wish (and possibly their J-31s), complete their carriers, complete the Type 096 SSBN fleet, and complete the H-20 and have it replace the H-6s. As they do this, they also perfect their asymmetric warfare capabilities, and their economy grows.

If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula however, it will be interesting to see if things change, in America's favor or China's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Only a few things...OK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta
I thought this topic is a perfect opportunity to discuss the current and near-future buildup of Liaoning and a new carrier, specifically for CMANO players. But well, SCS happens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Only a few things...OK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

quote:

ORIGINAL: TyeeBanzai

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

In a short period of time (again, not specific), they "could" impose tariffs on nations intending to do business with them, or any other nation, that must transit through the SCS. This "could" be used as a source of income. In fact, under the proper circumstances, I could even see the US paying these tariffs if they thought that by refraining to do so would only hurt their own economy. These tariffs actually play right into the hands of "diplomacy", similar to the US's approach toward thwarting the nuclear effort in Iran.

I personally think this day will come in the early 2030s. China needs only a few more things- field the DF-41 en mass, field their J-20s as they wish (and possibly their J-31s), complete their carriers, complete the Type 096 SSBN fleet, and complete the H-20 and have it replace the H-6s. As they do this, they also perfect their asymmetric warfare capabilities, and their economy grows.

If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula however, it will be interesting to see if things change, in America's favor or China's.

There are more advanced things in storage which would already raise the fire-power and capability of China's armed forces considerably in a Sino-American War scenario. I'm not talking the Railgun and DEW development here, but more 'conventional' weapons, such as stealth AShMs (already known as "YJ-20") and long range hypersonic missiles like the DF-17. These things, in addition to more space-based assets of reconnaissance and communications will considerably enhance the PLA's capabilities at a relatively low price and fast pace, as compared to deploying large numbers of J-20s and H-20 stealth bombers, both of which are still waiting for their target engines (H-20 less so than the J-20).

But the best indication that China actually doesnt want to wage war against the US is the fact that the Minimum Deterrence doctrine for the nuclear forces have not been abolished to this day. China will grow their arsenal a little bit by modernizing/replacing old systems, but they are unlikely to pursue MAD, which would be a requirement for a conventional war against the US, deterring them from using nuclear weapons in response to losses suffered from Chinese conventional strikes.

Hence China wanting to choke off other Asian nation's shipping through the SCS is a totally idiotic idea. China's militarization of the SCS and the artificial islands were more of a overreaction to the feeble Vietnamese reclamation efforts that preceded them, fearing that Vietnam would begin with a Salami-slicing action to take hold of more islets and reefs in the area, which prompted China's own Salami-slicing response. Which were, of course, pretty big slices designed to cower the adversaries. Despite this, we still need to realize that Vietnam holds the majority of the reefs and islets in the SCS, including those who are naturally best suited for island bases. And the Vietnamese, nor the Chinese, have ever attempted to stop commercial shipping in the area since decades, so why the panic?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TyeeBanzai

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Only a few things...OK.

Only a few things in terms of equipment. I am not knowledgeable on other aspects of modern armed forces. And of course, this is my opinion, so you are welcome to criticize it and correct me if you disagree or if I am wrong

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

quote:

ORIGINAL: TyeeBanzai

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

In a short period of time (again, not specific), they "could" impose tariffs on nations intending to do business with them, or any other nation, that must transit through the SCS. This "could" be used as a source of income. In fact, under the proper circumstances, I could even see the US paying these tariffs if they thought that by refraining to do so would only hurt their own economy. These tariffs actually play right into the hands of "diplomacy", similar to the US's approach toward thwarting the nuclear effort in Iran.

I personally think this day will come in the early 2030s. China needs only a few more things- field the DF-41 en mass, field their J-20s as they wish (and possibly their J-31s), complete their carriers, complete the Type 096 SSBN fleet, and complete the H-20 and have it replace the H-6s. As they do this, they also perfect their asymmetric warfare capabilities, and their economy grows.

If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula however, it will be interesting to see if things change, in America's favor or China's.

There are more advanced things in storage which would already raise the fire-power and capability of China's armed forces considerably in a Sino-American War scenario. I'm not talking the Railgun and DEW development here, but more 'conventional' weapons, such as stealth AShMs (already known as "YJ-20") and long range hypersonic missiles like the DF-17. These things, in addition to more space-based assets of reconnaissance and communications will considerably enhance the PLA's capabilities at a relatively low price and fast pace, as compared to deploying large numbers of J-20s and H-20 stealth bombers, both of which are still waiting for their target engines (H-20 less so than the J-20).

But the best indication that China actually doesnt want to wage war against the US is the fact that the Minimum Deterrence doctrine for the nuclear forces have not been abolished to this day. China will grow their arsenal a little bit by modernizing/replacing old systems, but they are unlikely to pursue MAD, which would be a requirement for a conventional war against the US, deterring them from using nuclear weapons in response to losses suffered from Chinese conventional strikes.

Hence China wanting to choke off other Asian nation's shipping through the SCS is a totally idiotic idea. China's militarization of the SCS and the artificial islands were more of a overreaction to the feeble Vietnamese reclamation efforts that preceded them, fearing that Vietnam would begin with a Salami-slicing action to take hold of more islets and reefs in the area, which prompted China's own Salami-slicing response. Which were, of course, pretty big slices designed to cower the adversaries. Despite this, we still need to realize that Vietnam holds the majority of the reefs and islets in the SCS, including those who are naturally best suited for island bases. And the Vietnamese, nor the Chinese, have ever attempted to stop commercial shipping in the area since decades, so why the panic?

I don't see why minimum deterrence prevents China from starting a war with the US. Just the fact that the majority of their nuclear arsenal is TEL based makes it very survivable, and by MIRVing the DF-41, the amount of missiles/warheads required to deliver a full scale retaliatory strike against American military and civilian targets would not be at the same level as US or Soviet missile/warhead arsenals in the Cold War. Especially when China does not need to worry as much about a war with Russia and the US compared to... the US, which is in a position in which it theoretically could one day fight a two front war with Russia/China, the PLARF doesn't need 1000 missiles, if the Chinese wanted to bet on peace with Russia for a long time. If China is building a military that can engage anywhere however, the requirements for their nuclear forces change. Also, I didn't take into account India or Europe when I wrote this.

If the Chinese really wanted to, I think the idea of them taxing passage through the SCS isn't a crazy idea. Remember- the Chinese still do things like steal other country's intellectual property, commit various human rights abuses, and disregard their natural environment in the name of economic growth. To top it all off, they are building artificial islands in the SCS and claiming the entire body of water is theirs.

If they are even going to begin militarizing the waters, the idea of them closing of the SCS isn't that far fetched, and considering the "maximum profit" doctrine the CPC sometimes seems to use, it kind of makes sense. Although, I do believe the control of resources is the primary objective in their SCS endeavor, and that closing the seas would only be a secondary action that would come well after the Chinese military has fully modernized, or, if the US is shown to be extremely weak by some other international event.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

quote:

ORIGINAL: TyeeBanzai

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Only a few things...OK.

Only a few things in terms of equipment. I am not knowledgeable on other aspects of modern armed forces. And of course, this is my opinion, so you are welcome to criticize it and correct me if you disagree or if I am wrong

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

quote:

ORIGINAL: TyeeBanzai

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

In a short period of time (again, not specific), they "could" impose tariffs on nations intending to do business with them, or any other nation, that must transit through the SCS. This "could" be used as a source of income. In fact, under the proper circumstances, I could even see the US paying these tariffs if they thought that by refraining to do so would only hurt their own economy. These tariffs actually play right into the hands of "diplomacy", similar to the US's approach toward thwarting the nuclear effort in Iran.

I personally think this day will come in the early 2030s. China needs only a few more things- field the DF-41 en mass, field their J-20s as they wish (and possibly their J-31s), complete their carriers, complete the Type 096 SSBN fleet, and complete the H-20 and have it replace the H-6s. As they do this, they also perfect their asymmetric warfare capabilities, and their economy grows.

If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula however, it will be interesting to see if things change, in America's favor or China's.

There are more advanced things in storage which would already raise the fire-power and capability of China's armed forces considerably in a Sino-American War scenario. I'm not talking the Railgun and DEW development here, but more 'conventional' weapons, such as stealth AShMs (already known as "YJ-20") and long range hypersonic missiles like the DF-17. These things, in addition to more space-based assets of reconnaissance and communications will considerably enhance the PLA's capabilities at a relatively low price and fast pace, as compared to deploying large numbers of J-20s and H-20 stealth bombers, both of which are still waiting for their target engines (H-20 less so than the J-20).

But the best indication that China actually doesnt want to wage war against the US is the fact that the Minimum Deterrence doctrine for the nuclear forces have not been abolished to this day. China will grow their arsenal a little bit by modernizing/replacing old systems, but they are unlikely to pursue MAD, which would be a requirement for a conventional war against the US, deterring them from using nuclear weapons in response to losses suffered from Chinese conventional strikes.

Hence China wanting to choke off other Asian nation's shipping through the SCS is a totally idiotic idea. China's militarization of the SCS and the artificial islands were more of a overreaction to the feeble Vietnamese reclamation efforts that preceded them, fearing that Vietnam would begin with a Salami-slicing action to take hold of more islets and reefs in the area, which prompted China's own Salami-slicing response. Which were, of course, pretty big slices designed to cower the adversaries. Despite this, we still need to realize that Vietnam holds the majority of the reefs and islets in the SCS, including those who are naturally best suited for island bases. And the Vietnamese, nor the Chinese, have ever attempted to stop commercial shipping in the area since decades, so why the panic?

I don't see why minimum deterrence prevents China from starting a war with the US. Just the fact that the majority of their nuclear arsenal is TEL based makes it very survivable, and by MIRVing the DF-41, the amount of missiles/warheads required to deliver a full scale retaliatory strike against American military and civilian targets would not be at the same level as US or Soviet missile/warhead arsenals in the Cold War. Especially when China does not need to worry as much about a war with Russia and the US compared to... the US, which is in a position in which it theoretically could one day fight a two front war with Russia/China, the PLARF doesn't need 1000 missiles, if the Chinese wanted to bet on peace with Russia for a long time. If China is building a military that can engage anywhere however, the requirements for their nuclear forces change. Also, I didn't take into account India or Europe when I wrote this.

If the Chinese really wanted to, I think the idea of them taxing passage through the SCS isn't a crazy idea. Remember- the Chinese still do things like steal other country's intellectual property, commit various human rights abuses, and disregard their natural environment in the name of economic growth. To top it all off, they are building artificial islands in the SCS and claiming the entire body of water is theirs.

If they are even going to begin militarizing the waters, the idea of them closing of the SCS isn't that far fetched, and considering the "maximum profit" doctrine the CPC sometimes seems to use, it kind of makes sense. Although, I do believe the control of resources is the primary objective in their SCS endeavor, and that closing the seas would only be a secondary action that would come well after the Chinese military has fully modernized, or, if the US is shown to be extremely weak by some other international event.

There's quite a difference between internally directed action, like human rights abuses and using foreign IP without license, and externally directed action like choke off shipping or tax foreign vessels transiting the SCS. China's may be an authoritarian country that does not evoke much love by the West in terms of their political system, but one need to realize that authoritarian countries in an economic transition need external peace more than stable and mature democratic countries, who can be sure that due to their cyclic nature of election terms, noone actually has to take any responsibility for botched foreign policy decisions like ill-advised interventions, wars and destabilizations.
China has their allergic spots that would provoke the use of military force by the leadership, such as Taiwan and foreign suggestion that certain provinces should split off, but in terms of foreign policy, the CPC cannot take the risk of doing hugely escalatory moves that would resound back at home - the CPC has no term limits to hide behind. Whatever happens to the country, every CPC leadership has to take responsibility for. And an open war against the US because of actually less important and less vital reasons as the SCS islands is not something they would do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TyeeBanzai

That is a good point. Does the CPC think the US would risk war themselves over the islands however? If the CPC wants to be seen as powerful, and believes the US would not be willing to stop a closure/taxation, they may be tempted to begin charging for passage through the SCS.

At this moment in time however, I agree that war is unlikely, and international image, combined with internal image as you stated, is what the CPC is focusing on, and a "anti-globalization"-esque action liking closing the SCS unless countries pay would be bad.