South China Sea

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

User avatar
SeaQueen
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:20 am
Location: Washington D.C.

RE: South China Sea

Post by SeaQueen »

At the same time, IF China could actually use the islands to enforce shipping regulations (tariffs) they would actually be able to control the area.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. The Chinese don't want to do anything that might disrupt shipping, because they make a lot of money off that too. Furthermore, they need the oil that comes through there. It's really more about bullying their neighbors. For example, practically within swimming distance of Subi Reef is the Philippine held island of Thitu. On Thitu is a small detachment of Philippino Marines and a rough airstrip usable by C-130s. There's not much else there. I think there's plans to put some luxury resorts out there. I'm sure the snorkeling and scuba diving are great. If the Chinese wanted to cut them off, all they'd need to do is turn on their SAM radars, have their fighters start capping over the island and announce they're no longer going to tolerate the Philippino military presence on their islands. The Philippino government can't do anything to stop them. They can either agree to leave or starve.

That (and other things) puts the Philippines government in an awkward position, because if the Chinese government came to them and said they'd like them to accept unfavorable terms in an agreement to do oil and mineral exploration in the vicinity of that island, they can't really say "No," because the Chinese government doesn't really have to ask. Thus they'd be able to slowly erode the Philippines (or the Vietnamese, or the Malaysian, or the Brunei, or the Taiwanese) effective claims to the islands, without firing a shot, and at the same time exploit them economically, treating their concerns regarding economic development as subordinate to their own.

The US position in the SCS is neutral. While the US government supports the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and argues that the Spratly Islands represent an excessive claim on the part of the Chinese, it doesn't necessarily support anyone else's claim either. The government doesn't really care whose islands they are, so long as whatever solution is reached is arrived at peacefully. You're right, the US could probably steamroller those installations fairly quickly if pressed. That's not really who they're aimed at, though. They're really about coercing the other claimants to the Spratlys into accepting Chinese dominion over everything inside The Nine-Dash Line.

Given that, it's actually kind of a complicated thing trying to figure out under what conditions the US would actually intervene in the SCS. I don't think it would happen, unless either the US or one of their regional allies were actually attacked by the Chinese, which they might choose to do if the Chinese government felt that one of the claimants was insufficiently submissive to their interests, or if it was perceived as easier than strong arming the regional powers into giving up their own rights. Basically, one of the claimant nations would have to instigate something, or the potential US intervention would have to be perceived by the Chinese government as weak. In that case, the US would probably honor its agreements. The thing is, neither the claimants, nor the Chinese, nor the US really wants a war in the SCS. It's kind of an "everybody loses," situation. So the interesting question in my mind, is how does the US support its allies interests and deter Chinese aggression without firing a shot? I think that's really hard.
DWReese
Posts: 2400
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: South China Sea

Post by DWReese »

SeaQueen,

Thanks for sharing your insight on this topic.

As far as a scenario is concerned, as you said, I can't imagine the US congress approving military action in the SCS with the US being the aggressor. So, if an incident were to occur, then China must make the first aggressive act.

China, however, isn't stupid, so I don't see them doing that unless they were really provoked. So, if the US wanted to take action, if would have to create a situation where China appeared to be "the bad guy."

I can envision some situation where some unit commander somewhere has probably taken some kind of action because they were presented with a situation where they suddenly reacted, without the direction or guidance of their nation. In fact, I have a vision from the movie "The Bedford Incident", where actor James MacAthur's character hits the "FIRE BUTTON" when the stressed out captain (Richard Widmark) whose destroyer had been stalking a Soviet sub), was talking to someone else and loudly blurts out the words heard by MacArthur's character, "fire one", and he subsequently releases ASW weapons against the Soviet sub. The action, of course, results in a retaliatory strike by the Soviets which results in the death of all involved. I can see an "incident", whether it was planned or designed, being the spark that initiates a tactical, limited and retaliatory (non-nuclear) response by the other side.

I believe that the scenario has some potential, and like Kevin said, it should probably be limited in its size and scope.

Hopefully, we some scenario developer will take the reigns. <lol>

Doug
User avatar
SeaQueen
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:20 am
Location: Washington D.C.

RE: South China Sea

Post by SeaQueen »

I can see an "incident", whether it was planned or designed, being the spark that initiates a tactical, limited and retaliatory (non-nuclear) response by the other side.

I think the more likely possibility of accidental escalation arises at a higher level from lack of communication or miscommunication of intentions. The first Gulf War started because Saddam Hussein really didn't think that the United States would care about his invasion of Kuwait. He had diplomatic communications with the United States along the lines of, "The US does not want to involve itself in intra-Arab disputes," to support that thinking.

One of the risks of the United States agreeing to defend weaker nations like the Philippines or others in the region is that it might allow them to behave in a way which is more aggressive and belligerent than maybe they would otherwise be, because they believe they can count on US intervention should things ever get too crazy. That means the US runs the risk of being pulled into conflicts it'd really prefer not to be in. So the US has to manage that kind of behavior and simultaneously reign in the weaker powers (Perhaps threatening, "If you provoke the Chinese we might not be able to help you.") and simultaneously demonstrating the US's resolve to defend them by showing their readiness to defend them (perhaps be deploying carrier strike groups to the region, or bombers to Guam). The Chinese on the other hand, have their own uncertain calculations to make. Maybe their intelligence services get wind of both communications, which do they believe? Why? Maybe they look at the forces the US has committed and decided it's not enough to signal a meaningful commitment. It's all really complicated.

I could imagine a similar situation where US diplomats, in typically ambiguous language, at a period of heightened tensions in S.E. Asia say something like, "The US has no interest in becoming involved in intra-Asian disputes," and a Chinese government, hot to enforce its claim takes that as meaning, "The US will not intervene," which probably wouldn't be the case. Meanwhile, an emboldened Philippines and/or Vietnam collectively provoke the Chinese by seizing fishing boats, dredgers or GOPLATS. If the Chinese make a big move on the other claimants, it'd almost certainly provoke a US response even if the US implied otherwise in its diplomatic communications.

There's other possibilities too. Rules of engagement, for example. In a world of 200NM range cruise missiles at what point do they declare a contact hostile in the name of self defense? More than 200NM out? Good luck with that. When you're outgunned, what's an unambiguous warning? Maybe during a show of force, a bomber passes over a warship and the panicked crew fires, resulting in rapid escalation in the name of self-defense on both sides? One hopes that cooler heads prevail but depending on how the rules are written and what people are doing, it's hard to say that some red line won't be crossed without the other side even knowing it.


AlphaSierra
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:35 am

RE: South China Sea

Post by AlphaSierra »

China is a country of thieves and yes they are that stupid. They will screw up by pushing civilian fisherman too far. These are NOT their waters to "patrol", the promised hush money is not being paid by the Chinese and patience will wear thin with the affected nations.

That's what will spark the conflict. China does not have the resources to push any nation around. IMO China would be better suited to minding their own shores, and remembering the fact that one grenade will kill thousands of their citizens, who will not back their aspirations of world dominance.

I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way. -John Paul Jones
DWReese
Posts: 2400
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: South China Sea

Post by DWReese »

SeaQueen,

I can easily see some of your "hypothetical" examples as being the "spark" that begins hostilities.

After "acquiring" and developing these islands as they have, I can see China turning its attention to the re-acquisition of Taiwan. I can't take credit for this theory as it was the basis for the beginning of one of Larry Bond's books. That would certainly make for a more compelling reason to go to war.

The 200-mile range of some of these weapons does make for some interesting areas of operation. Again, this may be used as a threat to force a tariff on some shipping (US???) passing through the area.

Doug
DWReese
Posts: 2400
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: South China Sea

Post by DWReese »

I'm not sure that I am following your statements. Can you explain your comments in more detail?

The Chinese fisherman seem to be benefiting from the expansion. How are they being pushed, and in what manner?

While the courts have ruled that these other nations are the rightful owners of some of these contested islands, the Chinese sure seem to be presently occupying them. What "hush money" are you referring to?

While most other nations probably would appreciate China minding their own borders, it sure doesn't seem to be what they are doing. I have been completely amazed at what they have accomplished in three years. It doesn't look as if they will be going away unless forced to do so.

Doug

User avatar
Sharana
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:58 pm

RE: South China Sea

Post by Sharana »

For me those islands are stationary aircraft carriers for area control - good luck trying to enforce a blockade with them having such level of control in the area. Also nice buffer before the mainland in case of conflict in the future.
Image
User avatar
SeaQueen
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:20 am
Location: Washington D.C.

RE: South China Sea

Post by SeaQueen »

Taiwan... meh... I don't think they really care. As long as they're continuously pursuing increased ties between the mainland and Taiwan, I think reunification with Taiwan is looked upon as a fait accompli. The big problem in Taiwan would be if the government suddenly declared itself independent of China. As it stands right now, the official policy of Taiwan is that there is one China, and the government of Taiwan (i.e. The Republic of China) is the rightful government of China. The PRC disagrees with that position, but is willing to overlook it so long as they all agree that Taiwan is part of China.

Also, there exists almost no US commercial shipping to impose a tariff on. Most shipping companies in the modern age are multinational corporations, and their ships fly under flags of convenience (e.g. Liberia) which enable them to minimize costs while skirting labor and safety regulations. That makes it impractical to target US shipping specifically. Secondly, I think you misunderstand the nature of the conflict in the SCS. It really has nothing to do with the US at all. The only reason the US would intervene would be if one of the claimants other than China asked them to, and the US agreed to it. Any Chinese aggression in the region would be targeted primarily at one of its neighbors (Vietnam, The Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei). Even though the Taiwanese government maintains a garrison on one of the Spratlys, I doubt they'd do anything aggressive towards them, because Taiwan is a part of China (and they both agree) and Taiwan believes that everything inside the nine dash line is a part of China as well.
AlphaSierra
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:35 am

RE: South China Sea

Post by AlphaSierra »

The Chinese have over fished and polluted their own waters to the point they can not sustain enough fish to feed their people.

So the big bully agrees to pay off some Philippine and Indonesian officials, to fish their waters. The money has been slow or non existent, as predicted by almost everyone.

The Chinese have ZERO claim to any waters that far south and they know it. They were banking on the globalist obama and clinton to continue their carnage. That's not going to happen.

All that said, I wager that the daily phone calls to the White House from the Philippines are falling on deaf ears, in terms of you kicked us out of Subic so now you get what you deserve.

In other words, Phillipines... you made your bed, now lie in it.

I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way. -John Paul Jones
DWReese
Posts: 2400
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: South China Sea

Post by DWReese »

I found this article just today. it came out this week, I believe.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/12/chinese-se
nior-military-official-calls-for-attacks-on-us-ships-in-south-china-sea/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=amn&utm_campaign=alt&fbclid=IwAR3I9yyhqK-5Z3B8v0hVAul3jWnrhn3AzFbvccwwNrnecalVh5mtkvjUGNM

Doug
DWReese
Posts: 2400
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: South China Sea

Post by DWReese »

I agree with your assessment.

Doug
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”