Chinese CVGs are very impressive

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: DWReese
The US plan of diplomacy is a joke.

I think that's excessively pessimistic. It's kept the peace for a very long time, which is all that we really care about. When it comes right down to it, the US interest is in avoiding the disruption to global trade that a war in the region would entail. We don't particularly care whose islands they are, and although the US government supports UNCLOS, no President can manage to get enough Senators to ratify it. So... it's kind of weird in that respect, but I think the current US position is awkward and complicated in the long run, because it depends on continued military improvement even as defense spending is constrained to a fixed percentage of GDP, and the value the Chinese government sees in maintaining a positive relationship with the US government.

The US position of "you all work this out amongst yourselves, just don't murder each other," is perfectly fine for now. The thing is, the reason we've kept the peace is because we're the 800lb gorilla that nobody wants to have turned loose on them. The worrying thing, given Chinese military expansion is at that at some point the PRC government might decide they can challenge that 800lb gorilla and say, "We don't have to peacefully negotiate with the surrounding nations anymore." At that point, deterrence fails, and a major regional near-peer conflict could break out.

Exactly where that point is, is hard to say. They might believe they can challenge the US government right now (wrongly, I hope). As the Chinese military becomes more powerful, one must be concerned that eventually they might come to believe that they can successfully repel a US intervention in the region. Essentially what they're doing with their expansion is raising the potential cost of that intervention.

After Desert Storm, the politics in the US has favored intervention. The perception in the US was that conflicts would be fast, cheap and easy. The US, as a lone superpower, was invincible. In the realm of high tech conventional conflicts that's probably still true. Unfortunately, that narrative has problems. In the Balkans, for instance, the US never managed to achieve air superiority due to their well hidden network of mobile SAMs and decoys, for instance (I'm always surprised people don't do more Command scenarios based on The Balkans conflicts). These days, having seen the limits of US military power in Afghanistan and Iraq (not really victory, but less than a loss...) I think it's an opened question how the politics of intervention might shape up. I'm not a politician, though, I don't know how to answer that question. Would the US electorate believe that the cost of intervening in a conflict in the SCS is worth it? I don't know. I don't think anyone does.

On the PRC side, though, I don't think the President of China wakes up every morning and thinks, "How can I get in a war with the US today?" I think that there's too many things which benefit us all to even consider that. That being said, I think it's clear that they aspire to be able to one day deter U.S. intervention in what they see as a basically regional conflict among neighboring countries. In that sense, they see themselves as a potential equal to the US and want to be able to manage their own affairs in the way that they see fit. If that means violently resolving a conflict in the SCS, and intimidating their neighbors into submission, they would prefer that the US would be unable to stop them, even if they stop somehow short of that.

Chinese aggression in the SCS therefore would probably only occur if two things happened:

1) The PRC government believes that they can make the cost of a US intervention sufficiently high that the US electorate will be unwilling to support it for long.
2) The mutual benefits of Chinese integration into the global economy are no longer seen as sufficiently valuable to the Chinese people to justify avoiding a violent resolution of the dispute in the SCS.

In order to ensure #1, the US government must continuously improve its military particularly its air and naval forces. That's challenging because the defense budget has been fixed at ~2% GDP for a long time now. Given, it's more than most countries spend on defense, but given the size of the US economy we could probably afford to do more (it's that huge), even if we don't. The politics of that depend on the interest rates of US Treasury Bonds remaining low and whether or not the US government is willing to raise taxes (Congress answered that question a few months ago with a resounding, "No.")

In order to ensure #2, we need to ensure that the PRC becomes increasingly intertwined in the global economy and sees the US as a global economic partner that it would be unwilling to lose.

I think as long as the US continues with that strategy war is unlikely in the SCS. The Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Malasians, the Philippinos... they'll harass each other now and then, but war won't happen (one hopes).

[DWReese]

I don't disagree with you on any of your points.

But, the point is, if the US actually wanted to risk the repercussions of having a conflict with China, then they would have done so. Figuring that it is not worth the escalation, those chose diplomacy, which is another way of saying that they are going to try to bluff their way into an advantage. China is too smart for that ruse and, face it, this is a home game for the Chinese.

As I've said all along, if the US (or others) wanted to stop the Chinese build up, then they should have done it a long time ago. Blind man's Bluff doesn't work. So, their diplomacy is a joke. There won't be any military conflict unless the US challenges China's build up. As long as the "diplomacy" efforts continue, so does China with their fortifying and construction efforts. It will eventually reach a point (if it hasn't already) that it will be almost impossible to force them out.

So, if you want to say that diplomacy is a success because it has kept us out of a military conflict, then that could be a point of view. But, what has really kept peace is the fact that no one was willing to challenge China's unlawful acts. I don't call that diplomacy. I call that a joke. I guess it's all in how you spin the facts.

Doug

[TyeeBanzai]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

ORIGINAL: DWReese
The US plan of diplomacy is a joke.

1) The PRC government believes that they can make the cost of a US intervention sufficiently high that the US electorate will be unwilling to support it for long.

I don't think the PRC would attack for this reason. This reminds me of how the Imperial Japanese planned to move fast across the Pacific and then, after a number of military victories, negotiate with the US, assuming the US considered a Pacific war too costly to fight after the Japanese blitzkrieged across the ocean.

This isn't how it worked out of course, and I don't think China would fall for that false assumption.

Also, China has been working hard ever since the late 90s to build a "good China" image, and a conflict started by the PRC would throw that all away.

I don't think we will see major Chinese provocations for the duration of the Trump presidency. Now is the time for them to appear like a good guy, at the very least as one alongside the US.

[SeaQueen]

You're right. The US doesn't want to go to war with China. There's no good reason for it.

The US is not the world's policeman. The US military does not exist to enforce international law. I doubt the US electorate would support the use of US military force for the enforcement of international law independent of other justifications. If they got into that business I'm pretty sure it'd be a can of worms. A lot of countries (China among them, interestingly) would object to the US acting as the sole enforcer of international law.

The US government protects the interests of our nation. It always has. Our nation has no interest in war. Every time there's a carrier strike group or amphibious ready group down there, the goal is to reassure the nation's allies and deter conflict, not start one. When B-2s rotate into Guam, they're not there to attack China, they're there to demonstrate the capability that we could if they attacked our allies. The US government would like to see the nations in conflict in the SCS resolve their territorial dispute peacefully.

International courts, diplomats and meetings, that's winning as far as the US government is concerned, even if progress is slow or non-existent. The hope is to eventually build enough international pressure that the excessive claims get resolved. Nobody knows when or if it will happen. These sorts of things might not even happen all at once, but rather piecemeal. One of the claimants might concede a few miles of their claim here and there in exchange for something else, who knows? I'm just speculating. It's all about what they're willing to do. The US government won't force them to make a deal, even if it might prefer that they would. The world changes all the time, though, and just because conditions don't favor a diplomatic solution now doesn't mean they won't in the future.

Shooting cruise missiles is an "everybody loses," situation best avoided. Fortifying some of the islands is not helpful, but it's also not the same as killing people even if it increases the PRC's ability to do so. Mostly, the PRC just yells at people on the radio and has their coast guard harass fishermen in annoying, sometimes expensive, but usually non-lethal ways (the other countries involved do a lot of that too, by the way). That's a long way from war, and it's not really enforcing their claim, even if they have increased their capability to do so. It's just the PRC putting on a show, so they can say they did.

I think in the case of the SCS dispute, it remains to be seen whether the Chinese have the upper hand or not. The only way to know is for them to start a war over the islands and see who wins. I don't think they want that either, though. Giant fleet battles tend to be horrible, and imply the consumption of enormous resources. So, the peace is preserved, the PRC government jumps and stomps their feet every time someone sails a ship or flies a plane in there, and in the end everyone is at least less unhappy than they would be given the alternative. That's victory as far as the US government is concerned, and I think there's a logic to it. If the only way to determine if the PRC has the upper hand is to go to war, and they don't want to do that, because they might lose and that'd be awful, then they don't really have the upper hand, because even if they might also win, they can never reap the benefits of winning the war because they didn't win the war. So peace is clearly winning.

I suppose it is funny, or it would be, if only people's lives and the wealth of nations didn't depend on the whole silly dance continuing indefinitely. That happens sometimes in international politics, though, where governments ritualistically state their interests and perhaps do something symbolic but non-violent to make their point, but ultimately the status quo is preserved. If that what it takes to preserve the global economy that enables our civilization to be as awesome as it is, then I'm okay with it.

[DWReese]

I see China continuing to build on the atolls, without any interference from outsiders.

I see claiming nations filing protests which go nowhere toward resolving the dispute.

I see The US refusing to take any military action.

I see China continuing to build until it no longer matters because everything us built.

I see the claimants ultimately giving up because, "what's the point?" You're closing the barn after the horse is already gone.

I see the US attempting to claim that the waters around the now-occupied atolls are still International Waters and are therefore free to navigate.

I see China threatening to take action if the US (or any other nation) ever violates these waters in the future.

I see China eventually attacking some border nation's ship (not the US) as it makes its way through the area, just to make and example of what China will do if its territory is violated.

I see US warships and a "Show of Force" effort being put forth with some protests being filed, but no shots ever being fired, other than at the original ship.

I see "diplomacy" taking place in the form of talking, without ever resolving the issue, other than to say "no fighting."

I see some other news event surpassing this incident, making it completely forgotten in by month's end.

I see China continuing to possess the atolls, and all ships eventually steering clear of these atolls for fear of what happened before.

I see it as a victory for China.

Doug

[Raptorx7_slith]

If you think a military solution would solve this problem you are out of your mind.

[SeaQueen]

The claimants aren't giving up, and they most likely won't. All of their claims are tied up in the history of the region so it's not as simple as China being the de facto ruler of some of the islands.

The US and other nations violate their waters all the time. The Chinese make threats all the time. So what?

Building on the atolls doesn't matter if in the end it's all for show. It doesn't mean they possess them. The Vietnamese are building on the atolls too, does that mean they possess them? If I build a fence on my neighbor's property it doesn't make it my property.

If the Chinese government deliberately attacked a neighboring nation they'd be risking an intervention by the US, which would go badly for them on multiple levels. I don't think they have any interest in escalating things like that.

[DWReese]

I don't think that any solution is available now. If these countries were going to contest anything, then that should have done it long ago. As I said, "It's like closing the barn door after the horse is already out." It's done. China is not leaving, and there really isn't anything short of a major war involving the US to ever make that happen.

So, I guess that I'm not "out of my mind" since I totally agree with you. <g>

[DWReese]

The Chinese won't attack a neighboring nation. But, at some point they will fire at a ship (not a US ship) as a signal to the rest of the nations that they are imposing travel restrictions through THEIR (perceived by them) territorial waters.

I have read the last two court cases involving the claimants allegation of China's illegal occupation of the atolls in the area. The Filipino court document is the latest, if I recall. The total package, with references, etc., is 123 pages if I recall correctly. The court clearly sided with the Philippines, and clearly stated that China had NO RIGHT what-so-ever to those specific atolls. That was three years ago now. Nothing has changed. The Chinese are still there, and they have only strengthened their position on those atolls. So, while you say they will never give up their claim, and that it probably true, they don't have the military might to force the Chinese out, and the US (as others have pointed out) aren't going to do it.

So, as I said in the beginning, possession is nine-tenths of the law. According to the courts, the Chinese are in clear violation, yet they aren't going anywhere.

It's too late.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: DWReese
The Chinese won't attack a neighboring nation. But, at some point they will fire at a ship (not a US ship) as a signal to the rest of the nations that they are imposing travel restrictions through THEIR (perceived by them) territorial waters.

If they hit anything, that'd be attacking a neighboring country.

[TyeeBanzai]

I kind of have to agree with DWReese that China has effectively won the battle for the SCS. They still possess the atolls. Sooner or later, the resources around them will begin to be used up by China. Regardless of the "law", China is physically there, and isn't going to physically leave because of an agreement of words.

If the ultimate goal is peace, then sure, the US and her allies have won a great victory. But if the goal was to bring the islands back under the control of whoever rightfully owns them, the international community has failed horribly.

To put it into an analogy of sorts, if my neighbor takes my car away from me, and I tell him it is my car, it doesn't make it my car, because he is the one driving around in it, and I am unable to.

[BDukes]

These atolls are hardly defensible. They can provide one or two salvo's but will be destroyed shortly after war start until China builds a deeper more robust defense network. US at any point can use its mobility to dash in attack and be gone. China doesn't have the capability to chase them far enough out to take away that capability.

[thewood1]

"I build a fence on my neighbor's property it doesn't make it my property."

In most states in the US, if you maintain a piece of property, I think for seven years, and show that the original owner neglected it at the same time, you can lay claim to it. It still goes through a hearing, but it can be a very strong case if you can show actual neglect or indifference on the original owner's part. That is why you always do a plat plan for before doing anything near you property line.

My grandfather lived next to a school in Maine and mowed the field next to him for 20 years. He eventually laid claim and was given title from the state.

[SeaQueen]

In the case of China, there is no title and no overarching government to give it to them. Their ownership depends entirely on the consent of the other nations. In fact, the UN Charter states "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

That means there exists no "right of conquest" among nations analogous to what you described.

My grandfather lived next to a school in Maine and mowed the field next to him for 20 years. He eventually laid claim and was given title from the state.

[TyeeBanzai]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

"I build a fence on my neighbor's property it doesn't make it my property."

In most states in the US, if you maintain a piece of property, I think for seven years, and show that the original owner neglected it at the same time, you can lay claim to it. It still goes through a hearing, but it can be a very strong case if you can show actual neglect or indifference on the original owner's part. That is why you always do a plat plan for before doing anything near you property line.

My grandfather lived next to a school in Maine and mowed the field next to him for 20 years. He eventually laid claim and was given title from the state.

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

In the case of China, there is no title and no overarching government to give it to them. Their ownership depends entirely on the consent of the other nations. In fact, the UN Charter states "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

That means there exists no "right of conquest" among nations analogous to what you described.

My grandfather lived next to a school in Maine and mowed the field next to him for 20 years. He eventually laid claim and was given title from the state.

The point is, so long as China is the one actually physically present there, any sort of verbal dispute over the ownership is useless. That's not to say that the only solution to the problem is a military one, but it seems to be far too late to stop them now.

[thewood1]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

In the case of China, there is no title and no overarching government to give it to them. Their ownership depends entirely on the consent of the other nations. In fact, the UN Charter states "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

That means there exists no "right of conquest" among nations analogous to what you described.

My grandfather lived next to a school in Maine and mowed the field next to him for 20 years. He eventually laid claim and was given title from the state.

I was just pointing out your comparison doesn't work for some parts of the world. That's why I only quoted that part.

[Dysta]

So, no more CVBG discussion?

While we are heating up our discussion with claimingship and destructibility of artificially reclaimed islands, why not the NATO on EU should take notice on Chinese carriers when oversea base and OBOR is being to function?

We need to remember all military assets are product of reasons, be it to give answers to adversaries, or power projection whoever and whenever the traveling citizens or countries around the world needs military assistance. US has numerously proved the capability of military intervention as long as the sea is in their control. Now let's put the SCS debate aside: what if Syria/Palestine/Iran and China comes to agreements with the influence of OBOR and some infrastructure projects? They needs solid protections, or it will ended up easily tarnished by any unrest or war like Libya and Yemen. The Chinese naval task groups around Somali sea had come to rescue many times.

If China will deploy a CVBG or even performing patrolling routine in the future (surely not too soon, but time will be very different), how much pressure China will be given to EU and other ME countries sided with US? Combined with OBOR and increasing demand of sea trades through commercial routes, the central Asia and Indian sea will basically filled with lots of Chinese civilian and military presences on their radars. As in Europe is still in deep paranoid whenever Russian military ships/fleet passing and leaving the Mediterranean?

I am not saying CVBG will be worthless outside China's sea, but neither China will really dare to. If Chinese frigates can roam around Somali sea for many years just fine, why not a bigger and more strategical vessel?

These are inspired by Kevinkin's String of Pearls scenario project. I am so sure he make this to acknowledge what PLAN can do outside the SCS.

[ExNusquam]

I kind of have to agree with DWReese that China has effectively won the battle for the SCS. They still possess the atolls. Sooner or later, the resources around them will begin to be used up by China. Regardless of the "law", China is physically there, and isn't going to physically leave because of an agreement of words.

If the ultimate goal is peace, then sure, the US and her allies have won a great victory. But if the goal was to bring the islands back under the control of whoever rightfully owns them, the international community has failed horribly.

To put it into an analogy of sorts, if my neighbor takes my car away from me, and I tell him it is my car, it doesn't make it my car, because he is the one driving around in it, and I am unable to.

Maintaining peace or determining ownership of the islands/reefs are not the policy goals of the US and her allies - ensuring stable, worldwide flow of goods and the maritime access to guarantee that are their policy goals. Some variant of "free and open" trade systems appears in every National Security Strategy produced. The US has benefited massively from international trade since it's inception, and maintaining access to world markets is critical. The actual ownership of the SCS doesn't impact that policy goal, as long as the owner abides by international norms.

The fact that China doesn't abide by international norms with their interpretation of UNCLOS threatens that policy. The PRC's views on innocent passage and EEZs would prohibit the US from protecting trade (see Operation Earnest Will or the Barbary Wars). US actions are intended to exercise its rights under UNCLOS, and the Chinese seem to have settled into professional military responses (despite the state press).

Despite the prevailing attitude that the US is the "world's policeman", the US's long-term policy is very much grounded in realpolitik, if a bit hampered by a short attention span.

[TyeeBanzai]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

I kind of have to agree with DWReese that China has effectively won the battle for the SCS. They still possess the atolls. Sooner or later, the resources around them will begin to be used up by China. Regardless of the "law", China is physically there, and isn't going to physically leave because of an agreement of words.

If the ultimate goal is peace, then sure, the US and her allies have won a great victory. But if the goal was to bring the islands back under the control of whoever rightfully owns them, the international community has failed horribly.

To put it into an analogy of sorts, if my neighbor takes my car away from me, and I tell him it is my car, it doesn't make it my car, because he is the one driving around in it, and I am unable to.

Maintaining peace or determining ownership of the islands/reefs are not the policy goals of the US and her allies - ensuring stable, worldwide flow of goods and the maritime access to guarantee that are their policy goals. Some variant of "free and open" trade systems appears in every National Security Strategy produced. The US has benefited massively from international trade since it's inception, and maintaining access to world markets is critical. The actual ownership of the SCS doesn't impact that policy goal, as long as the owner abides by international norms.

The fact that China doesn't abide by international norms with their interpretation of UNCLOS threatens that policy. The PRC's views on innocent passage and EEZs would prohibit the US from protecting trade (see Operation Earnest Will or the Barbary Wars). US actions are intended to exercise its rights under UNCLOS, and the Chinese seem to have settled into professional military responses (despite the state press).

Despite the prevailing attitude that the US is the "world's policeman", the US's long-term policy is very much grounded in realpolitik, if a bit hampered by a short attention span.

With the new strategy of great power competition over anti-terrorism, it will be interesting to see if any concrete steps are taken over the SCS, although the North Korean issue will probably be finished one way or another before anything happens with the SCS, in my opinion.

[DWReese]

To get back to our original topic, it's obvious that the Chinese CVG has a tremendous amount of SAMs protecting it, but its lack of ship-based a/c is a huge detriment to it operational mobility if it were to venture too far away from shore-based air units.

I stripped the Spratly scenario down and sent the two TG directly toward on another, with out any land-based a/c to help. Of course, a tremendous amount of missiles were fired until one group of ships simply withdrew. It was like two gunslingers from the old west. China got of its shots first, and probably should have simply withdrawn since most of its weapons were depleted rather than continuing to proceed. The Allies, if allowed to get into range, were able to release enough missiles to have the Chinese withdraw, that is if the Allies hadn't already withdrawn after the first series of attacks from China which depleted most of their SAMs. So, depending on policy, this whole thing could have ended in a bloodless draw. Of course, this isn't how real life actually works, so my scenario means nothing.

I then replaced the Allied TG with a US CVG. This wasn't close. The air and missile ordinance was, as expected, way too much for the Chinese. That, of course, proves your point that ships are very dependent of a/c, and that does kind of, restrict the Chinese a little bit.

It's an interesting topic, and depending on how far each side wants to tale the battle will determine if it is just a "spat", as the scenario's name suggests, or if it's an actual annihilation.

Interesting topic.

Doug