US Military response to China’s Chain of War Attacks? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> The War Room



Message

BrianinMinnie -> US Military response to China’s Chain of War Attacks? (6/26/2017 11:01:46 PM)

Let’s talk about potential US Military response to China’s Chain of War attempt to secure the Western Pacific or maybe just SE Asia into its new Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

If you were supreme commander US Forces, How would your reply to EMP, cyber and ballistic missile attacks against US and the area’s allied Forces go?

Me, an armchair commander, would remind China that only one county on this planet have used nuclear weapons and I would use disproportionate force in this case to prevent a long war of attrition and loss of lives to retake back lost ground.

I would, once ballistic missiles were used against Allied Carrier groups, airfields and various military assets, use “small” nuke weapons(is there such a thing?) against any and all Chinese forces away from major populations centers with the promise that if, they would like the balloon to go up, we will gladly oblige them. And since Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan don’t appear too keen on speaking Chinese, they may deem such actions “feasible”.

A long grinding protracted war would eventually end up this way so I’d say let’s get to it.

Crazy right? Is it anymore crazy than China attacking because of perceived threats to China or “opportunities”, for China to accomplish whatever goals they’ve talked themselves into? After they’ve “won” how exactly would “Peace” work?

I know computer war gaming is fun, I enjoy Command immensely, but a conventional attack against the US is something that even in todays fractured weird and surreal politics, I believe the US would not quit, nor bargain for peace and would start the beginning of a end of world conflagration.

Would the US Military just say, well we’ve lost 4-5 Carriers, 10+ Bases to Missiles, thousands of servicefolk dead, let’s go lick our wounds? Social Media would be bonkers I know.

I, as a before mentioned armchair commander, I say no, either let’s all join each other in the stone age......or you can withdraw all your forces to pre-attack departure lines. And I’m not even sure if that’s possible.

What Say you all?



Dysta -> RE: US Military response to China’s Chain of War Attacks? (6/27/2017 12:54:54 AM)

Remember what drive China to prosperous wealth and advancement? Economy.

If I have 2000 Tomahawks, 3 Carrier groups with at least 24 Burkes, 8 SSN and 4 Tomahawk-SSBN at my disposal, I will put 75% of entire firepower against every single non-military, economy-based targets and structures in Shanghai. And 25% to protect my own/allied fleets.

SCO's headquarter is in Shanghai.

Belt and Road & AIIB is supervised by Shanghai officials.

One of the major population and tourist attention is in Shanghai.

It is also heavily defended (during the CoW) and have a naval shipyard for building destroyers and aircraft carriers.

Shanghai is the most eastward of city in China.

And ultimately, Shanghai was invaded by Imperial Japan during the WW2.

I'd seek all the most important and most populated civilian targets as a sacrificial aggressors, by annihilating the very heart of Chinese economy, rendering the entire network of financial system paralyzed and unable to recover or use reserve to maintain the trading and economical support to their own citizens. Also, 2000 Tomahawks will be put around 2 million of talented, mid-class population in lethal situations (presuming to take down one skyscraper with 2 Tomahawks, and let the fire do the rest of job) and even put all the emergencies and civil servants cannot protect and rescue with. And it can be served as an utmost humiliation to the Chinese government when Japan occupied Shanghai in WW2, so does the US in modern time.

It's advised to crumple civilian target first because China is the first aggressor against Geneva Convention, also in the historical tie of Sinophobic hatred for Western and ASEAN nations that no longer take empathy to Third-world 'parasites'. Of course, it's a heinous war crime, but at war it's best to finish as fast as possible before even more crime to be committed, and I doubt after the US's 'victory' (that isn't because in CoW, China has finally defended their homeland except all the naval assets was gone, the US did not terminate the Chinese aggression that way) any court and judge will not be on China's side because they will declare China has been 'defeated' and have to suffer.

And humiliatingly, this is the best way to 'repay' China the debt, only just few billion dollars worth of expenditures (without unit loss) can be done with entirely.

So, the Shanghai massacre event is aim to crumple the very root of Chinese civilization -- Greed, not just the ideologies from collectivism like in Cold War. It doesn't need to decapitate the Chinese leader; it doesn't even need to face direct battle against the remaining troops in China. Just straight up stabbing the 'heart' and the rest of 'body parts' will follow its fate.

The only problem is, even all the attack are not involved with nuke, nobody can predict what China will do with 800 warheads (not 300, its grossingly underestimated) after this event, one is enough to cause global fear, what about hundreds?



Cik -> RE: US Military response to China’s Chain of War Attacks? (6/27/2017 12:29:42 PM)

dysta's probably correct. there's no actual way to defeat china's army. they're too numerous, too entrenched and the country is simply too big. any actual victory would come exclusively at sea, and probably after months of anti-shipping that would be required to completely shut down sea trade. ultimately the army may cause more harm than good to the chinese citizenry if the war is not ended quickly, as they will become hungry, desperate and frustrated.

my thoughts are that any invasion of the chinese mainland would get nuclear quickly, and so the best strategy on their part is to use the nukes as a bargaining chip to maintain their territorial/political integrity on the mainland. any sort of partition or regime change is then off the table and then at least the PRC leadership does not have to fear for their lives/livelihoods and so will not press the button out of desperation.

this is a little political though and discussing this sort of thing is a little grim. everyone should hope that it never comes down to this IMO.



BrianinMinnie -> RE: US Military response to China’s Chain of War Attacks? (6/28/2017 2:51:31 PM)

Thanks Cik and Dysta, war is grim(understatement!), I wasn’t trying to be too political per say, and I realize that any sniff of invasion of china is foolhardy, my intent was to discuss peoples thoughts on if one is the US commander, being presented with the devastating early attack by China's forces, what the options are there to turn the tide back towards the US favor. Dysta took the unique way of attacking the political and economic centers on the mainland as to then I assume make the price of continuing to wage war against the west, not cost effective both monetarily and at high civilian cost.

Wouldn’t they have already assumed retaliation was coming and factor that into their endgame?

In the game, I don’t like the idea of eating conventional ballistic missiles without a payback. I hope the US is reconsidering its lack of conventional Missile forces somehow and I do realize we went away from them as to not confuse the Russians that possible nukes are in the air. Hyper sonic delivery systems maybe?

A pile of cruise missiles accomplishes the same result as Ballistic but I like the quick results and intimidation of rocket forces. If I recall right in the game Fleet Command the US had an Ohio class sub that used conventional Trident Missiles, a game changer but I assume against some treaty agreed to with the Russians.

A good discussion none the less.




Cik -> RE: US Military response to China’s Chain of War Attacks? (6/28/2017 3:08:35 PM)

USAF probably always figured they could achieve the same effect conventional rockets did by using aircraft, probably; and aircraft are easier to ferry. the more mobile strategy makes sense, as long as you plan to fight across many theaters and want a very versatile platform. your average multirole fighter can do everything; recon, interdiction, CAS, air superiority, strategic bombing, etc; rockets can't do half that and in addition the CEP (especially before the modern era) was always pretty wonky. they are also relatively vulnerable to counterstrikes.

in china's strategy they make sense though, especially as their range consistently increases. as long as all you have to do is project deterrence against fixed targets, they work and are cheap & numerous. behind a wall of heavy area-denial they are relatively well defended and even if you lose a few it's not a telling defeat in any real way.

rocket forces grow because they can "play the edges" they counter air power in a non-direct way (IE, can target the bases with munitions that aircraft cannot realistically defeat, from ranges nominally outside tactical range, and thus, reprisal) the advantages of modern air power (stealth, long range AAMs, sophisticated ECCM/ECM) are negated because they do not prevent them from targeting "that grid square over there with the base" etc. US and other western powers don't have to worry about that sort of thing because up until recently they have enjoyed a relatively large advantage in the air.

tl;dr heavy rocket forces such as the one fielded by the PRC are outgrowths of reasonable strategic planning and also probably a result of russian doctrinal leanings going back half a century (AFAIK before the sino-soviet emnity there were lots of soviet trainers in mao's china and traditionally the russians really liked tactical/strategic missiles)

the US doesn't field them because they haven't needed to and/or the doctrine revolves around a much stronger air-to-surface focus based around multirole aircraft that can cover wide areas, quickly shift between theaters and ferret out and suppress defensive systems, backed up by a strategic nuclear missile force for deterrence. in this scheme additional non-naval/aircraft missile forces are mostly superfluous as they are heavy, immobile, inflexible and limited to one theater that may turn out to be useless if an engagement starts somewhere else.

that wasn't really a tl;dr but you get the picture anyway.




Dysta -> RE: US Military response to China’s Chain of War Attacks? (6/29/2017 9:11:13 AM)

It's a worth of discussion despite I might went overboard about this economic-kill solutions. The key is the US-led MTCR treaty should need a major edit to countering long-range projectiles that both circumvented the law, and developed some unique weaponries that not in the category to regulate at all. While at the same time to be more realistic and provide attack solutions against civilian targets as well.

It will ended up like WW1's no-man zone style of tug-of-war, the side who cannot sustain the expenditures or logistics, loses. Fighting waves by waves of bombs, missiles, rockets and eventually someone in between frontlines will become the biggest victim.

For China however, she mightn't act like the Imperial Japan in WW2; the more warships they lose, the more they gone desperate and prepare the bloody battle at homeland. If not the emperor conceded the defeat, I doubt the third A-bomb at Tokyo will change their 'warriorhood' mindset because they knew war will get them killed someday. China has massive populations, but at best they are just warmongering sheeps -- they don't have 2nd amendment or the right to bear proper swords to learn warriorhood because they are all banned from potentially used for revolt.

Sinking Liaoning might not cause major blows to PLA because it's not an epicenter of naval firepower, nor China cannot build a better replacement in rapid succession, but Chinese citizens might not buy the loss of pride because it will remind them the colonial past again, and will lost hope to defend China altogether. The PLA will berserk, and worse, commits more war crimes to counter shaming the US.

That leaves only one options if Chinese military and citizens are entirely maintaining foothold to fight on, is to both economically isolate the mainland, AND destroy their resources and banking to make them instantly runs out of gas to breathe. However if vast majority of populations are still loyally serve and support China, US can declare these citizens as hostile combatants without major consequence in Geneva Convention. Nuke is the best weapon to cleanse these drones out, but it's a warranted MAD. Tomahawks and MALDs however are conventional, and can giving enough psychological impact to citizens, and deaths if persistent.

It's a war of militiary economy, who has the most weapons and fires the most, can stands higher ground on no-mans land battle. Bloodshed is barbaric, but always effective when dealing with most the problems involved with populations.



marksi10 -> RE: US Military response to China’s Chain of War Attacks? (8/1/2017 12:18:39 PM)

Wow, I´m glad you guys aren´t in charge.

Why would the US risk the nuclear annihilation of its own forces at best, and its own population at worst, just to stop China bossing Vietnam and Korea around? Japan wouldn´t let itself be bossed around for long (it would produce nukes) and in any case, China wouldn´t actually want to occupy any of these countries (they have seen America lose soldiers and waste resources in the Middle East). The only country that they would be at all likely to invade and occupy is Taiwan, and again, why would America start a nuclear war to stop this?

As for destroying Shanghai, of course that wouldn´t lead to any tit-for-tat attacks, would it? And who the hell is America and the world going to trade with after they destroy China (and in the process Asia´s) economy?

A more reasoned analysis of the situation in Eastern Europe pointed out that conventional deterrence has supplanted nuclear because there is no longer an existential threat to the main powers. The same would apply in Asia, assuming that sane people were in charge on both sides.



Primarchx -> RE: US Military response to China’s Chain of War Attacks? (8/1/2017 12:51:22 PM)

Tell me how many land-based LOCs the PRC has. Now look at their sea-based LOCs. Where do they go? How do they protect them against the USN? Not easily.



marksi10 -> RE: US Military response to China’s Chain of War Attacks? (8/1/2017 1:53:40 PM)

I totally agree, as it seems does China. I was just about to suggest that a more humane and effective policy would be to fight a defensive war whilst interdicting China´s fuel supplies. China does not rely on these for domestic energy production, but it does for anything that requires oil, which includes almost all military vehicles. As long as Russia co-operates (it could be pointed out to them that, if China succeeds, they would be next, and that if the US is kicked out of Asia, it would be free to transfer most of its ground forces and tactical air forces to Europe), the Chinese should start running low on oil within a few months, and could be brought to the negotiating table.



Dysta -> RE: US Military response to China’s Chain of War Attacks? (8/2/2017 2:00:13 AM)

Oil will run out, for first. Young population to train military combatants and technicals will also run out from the effect of one-child policy, that is second. Third, destroyed economy cannot maintain logistic support, cause to slowing and stopping military deployments.

And fourth, if not the last, is forcing ex-partners from Chinese economy to do business with US and its alliances, finding another countries to replace Chinese industry and intergrate with the Fourth Industrial Revolution standards. Poverty on ASEAN country can be greatly reduced, and Made in China syndromes become the past. This is hardly happening, I guess. But said the same to China after 1989 too, and see what they've become nowadays.

There are lots of humane solutions to soften or even 'wake' these drones to point their guns against their own government, but turning China into Syria 2.0 is the LEAST favorable global outcome consider the mass immigrations, warmbed of terrorism and perpetual state of warlord struggles cannot be solve with rapidly combined with hundred folds the size of Syrian populations. Installing new government to the post-imperial China can draw lots of territorial and racial identity issues (China has over 50 minorities and some are owned with their own autonomous regions.) unless China itself is powerful enough to runs in multi-state federation like the US, which is impossible after a war.

So yea, death is a bliss, because everyone are allowed to die through numerous causes. Post-war secondaries can be as destructive as in a middle of missile exchanges, only the question is when.

If China is gone for good, Russia will be the next without the biggest trading partner to reinstate the Soviet glory, so NATO will have decisive military advantages... conventionally. Again, what could possibly go wrong if thousands of Russian nukes will put in use, after seeing the fall of China?

It's somehow ironic that the last chapter in Chain of Wars campaign is China can still drive the US and its alliances off with advanced PLAAF weaponries. I guess it's also a message to US and alliances that the superiority of air (and space) is the superiority of every dimensions of battleground, US is supposingly understanding that more than China do, but given the ceased production of F-22 and chaotic development of F-35, their aerial power does surely need lots of reassignment.



sven6345789 -> RE: US Military response to China’s Chain of War Attacks? (8/4/2017 1:01:44 PM)

ok,

a) the direct approach
China attacks Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. China takes out an american Aircraft carrier. If the US retaliates with nuclear weapons, Mutual destruction would be assured. China cannot be invaded (to large, to strong )

b) the indirect approach
China is dependent upon trade and Resources. Without Resources the chinese economy will grind to a halt. Does the chinese navy have a capability to Project Power beyond the range of land based air and missiles? No, it hasn't (yet!). A chinese battle Group cannot survive in the indian ocean for long. It will be annihilated. So, the result will be a Chgina strangled to Death. Not to mention that being the aggressor (and attacking allies of both the western nations and Russia (Vietnam) will lead to a large coalition against China. Even China cannot win this. Not to mention that India might start military action too.



Dysta -> RE: US Military response to China’s Chain of War Attacks? (8/4/2017 10:11:56 PM)

Even without war, the global distaste against China is enough to weight down the prosperity in the future. Given by how many political events and journalisms since the beginning of Cold War can surely tell what humanity actually wants, Communist China is not one of them.

But with war, they will have every reason to fight, no matter how righteous to stop them. It can be a laugher if that is from 50s, no nuke, USSR no longer support China, and US military has an extreme advantage (especially the navy, imagine a massive swarm of Pickets and 6 Iowas put a proper use to encircle East Sea instead of ditching them) so why waste their breathe against North Korea if the mastermind is ultimately the Chinese wrongdoing?

Sure, both top brasses and politicians cannot see the future, but so does the enemy. You have to act upon or to be passive, depends on the timing and readiness. NATO may have put everything to crumple USSR already, but that is only half a whole Saga of modern humanity.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.109375