Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

Officially, the US is neutral in this dispute, supporting no single nation's claim to the islands. The US government supports the UNCLOS. I think it would be a mistake to assume that a US intervention in a Chinese land-grab would necessarily mean supporting one nation's claim over the other. It could also represent the position that a warlike resolution of the dispute is unacceptable. The end-game might be some sort of mediated resolution between the interested parties or a restoration of the status quo (they're "nobody's islands" in practice).

It's like, during the first Gulf War, the US remained neutral on the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. It merely took the position that conquering Kuwait and deposing the royal family was unacceptable. The goal was to restore the Kuwaiti royal family, push the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, and restore the borders to their pre-war state.

I suspect a Spratly conflict would most likely have similar limited goals, where US/Coalition victory doesn't mean that the Philippines, ROC, or Vietnam gets the islands. It just means a restoration of the status quo, which while not ideal to the conflict's participants, probably is more preferable to all parties than any single party controlling them.

Take a look at the book The Asia-Pacific Century: Challenges and Opportunities by Adam B Lowther, p 122.

What is status quo? Like Philippine troops to open fire on Chinese fishermen and kill one of them? That happened in year 2000. And they killed several fishermen from Taiwan region quite recently. Machine gunned an entire boat like those fishermen were gunning targets. Or Vietnam force shoot at Philippine Air Force recon plane? That happened in 1999. The status quo in SSC is not observation of UNCLOS but open fire when one fell appropriate.

Actually, I did not see USN sent any warship when Taiwan fishermen were killed by Philippine troops. Nor did they sent US warplanes to site of Vietnam land reclamation, so they don't shoot Philippine aircraft again. They even cheered at Chinese action at Chi Gua reef at 1988. The USG is the one that trying to change the status quo there- from everyone open fire when they fell appropriate to everyone beside China can open fire as they like and Chinese must refrain.

ORIGINAL: Hongjian
The problem at hand is that SCS claimants already have land-grabbed the islands decades before (with China not even being the one who controls the most - it's Vietnam).

I'm not saying they haven't. I am saying that in the event of hostilities, I doubt the ultimate goal would be to do anything beyond restore the status quo.

If it is China who does it, the US would have all the reason to intervene. But there's basically no reason for China to do it, as the islands she is currently controlling are offering her a pretty comfortable position to monitor and control maritime traffic in the SCS.

Therein would lie another problem. Attempting to "control" maritime or air traffic would be a violation of UNCLOS. Freedom of navigation is essential to global prosperity so if China were to begin interdicting maritime or air commerce that'd be a major issue. The US interest is in freedom of navigation and supporting UNCLOS. Beyond that, I doubt anyone in the US government really cares what the Chinese government does regarding a few uninhabitable coral reefs in the Pacific.

But what happens if Philippines and Vietnam does it, who assume that the US gave them a chèque en blanc to 'retake' what they see to be theirs due to the power overmatch against the PLAN? What if one of these two countries see China in a weaker position vis a vis the United States and use this to do the land-grab? What if thes two countries actually attack Taiwanese possessions in the SCS? Would the US fire at them and risk the anti-chinese alliance?

I wouldn't care to speculate. Comparatively, neither the Vietnamese nor the Philippines have the military capability to make such a move right now, so one would think they'd be deterred. I'd also like to think that the US would also use appropriate means to discourage them from it before it came to that. I doubt that if they chose to instigate a war, the US would do much to support them because US interests lie not in seeing one nation or the other control the islands but in maintaining freedom of navigation and supporting UNCLOS. Furthermore whatever facilities Vietnam and the Philippines have erected on the islands, all of them are currently held at risk by comparatively large numbers of much more modern Chinese ballistic missiles and bombers so the notion that both the Vietnamese and the Philippines are equivalently aggressive doesn't obtain. Both the Vietnamese and Philippines are militarily weak and the PRC knows it. The US government, being neutral in the dispute, seeks to deter war with the threat of intervention. The end state of that would be some kind of restoration of the status quo or all parties involved working out some kind of deal.

So, the only thing that prevents war there is the US threat of intervention. Without it, being the strongest of the 3 regional powers, the PRC would brush aside Vietnam and the Philippines facilities and take them in defiance of UNCLOS. If one day China feels strong enough to challenge the US militarily, there is a terrible war brewing. I hope that never happens.

Now someone please tell me - where's that wooden acolyte now and his master to legitimately reclaim this thread for the righteous folk who "only want to discuss their favourite game here" instead of "political blabbering"?

Rest assured you're going to get rescued and soon.Then straightened up and returned to the wellness of the almighty political correctness.

Guys, any threads which degenerate into political arguments will get locked, as per our global forum rules.

Cheers

Pip

ORIGINAL: magi

ORIGINAL: AlanChan

ORIGINAL: Dale H

What additional assets does each side have in the area beyond these? Thinking about escalating response to altercation involving USS Lassen.

CPLAN SSC patrol squadon (6X old 053s), CPLAN DDG division 6 and 9, a few FFG divisions, a few PT divisions equipped with Type 056s (VDS sonar), a few (about 10) subs, 2-3 air wings of CPLAN aviation, a few DF-21D AShBM briagde (50+ launchers), etc.

If Okiniwa is invovled, another few hundreds of SRBM and 3rd Gen aircraft would be invovled.

it is very hard to manage such a force with just one player, that is why I was hoping to get some Co-op function in the game.

I really like this idea… It is foremost on my mind As far as scenario go… Modeling possibilities South China Sea..... However you were right it would be very big…

I really like this idea… It is foremost on my mind As far as scenario go… Modeling possibilities South China Sea..... However you were right it would be very big…

Another problem: The CPLAN force structure is very dynamic. Just in a few years, the 30th type 056 just went into water. You think they are not important? they carry 8 SSMs/ASROC launcher and 1 VDS, a serious threat to ASEAN surface ships and trouble for US SSNs. And CPLAN is chewing out A LOT of them quickly. And 052D DDGs are rushing out from Shanghai. Rumors are Dalian will soon start producing 052D DDGs. Guangchuan is said to start 054A FFG's soon, doubling the production capacity. Not to mension the new 3rd Gen fighter and JH-7 long range strike aircraft.

Plus, Chinese are revealing new stuffs every quarter. JY-26 anti stealth UHF AESA was already too old, the new toy is SAC's large AEW UAV. And yesterday, Chinese test fired a ABM with energy management capacity, I suspect it is the Chinese version of THAAD ETI. How will this affect the effectiveness of Vietnam (and potientially ROC and Japan) SRBM deterrence?

With the new capacities added to all sides every quarter (although at different pace), the start point of scenerio is critical. Do you allow LRS-B ioc? or allow F-35 to mature with all ASM stuff currently planed? Or do you except a sequester style budget reduction that kill several us DDGs in the ship yard? All these dynamic factors are affecting outcome of scenerio

That remind me whenever a modern war happens, missiles comes first. Well, US still got Mando-missile massacre machines call Ohio class SSBN, refitted with 144 tomahawks.

3 subs of these and launch them all simultaneously, China then have no way to incept them all, all works in SCS will become wastes. Just not need to talk about the Chinese retaliation first, imagine the reaction when nearly 450 tomahawks straight to your military headquarters.

(If that is real, you also oughta imagine the loss of 45 billion USD to destroy only island targets, not the Chinese continent)

(If that is real, you also oughta imagine the loss of 45 billion USD to destroy only island targets, not the Chinese continent)

Erm, not really. TLAMs only cost about $1.5 million a piece, so you're looking at $675 mission to empty 3 SSGNs (assuming they're fully stocked).

That scenario brings up the point that the fortifications on the islands are not that useful when it comes to open conflict with a peer level adversary. I don't remember where I read this, but someone called them "aircraft carriers without any of the benefits of an aircraft carrier". All of the nations involved in the SCS dispute are improving their infrastructure on the islands, not with the intent of surviving a near-peer exchange, but with better projecting military presence in peacetime. The forward island airstrips give the PRC the ability to forward stage fighters, MPAs and coast guard vessels, improving their operational tempo in the Spratlys. This increase in operational tempo allows the Chinese deterrent against the Vietnamese, Philippines and Malaysia.

That is hella economical if you ask me. No AA risk of continental air strike, no gruesome maintaince for constantly launching B-2s, not even need a surface ship to be at risk of ASMs as well. I think US already wins even before the 'scenario' begins.

But still kind of waste if they are only destroying military fortification and low-value settlements, rather than long-term and strategical targets like military infrastructures or logistic transports (ports, shipyards) to totally maim down all the potential threats later on.

ORIGINAL: Dysta

That remind me whenever a modern war happens, missiles comes first. Well, US still got Mando-missile massacre machines call Ohio class SSBN, refitted with 144 tomahawks.

3 subs of these and launch them all simultaneously, China then have no way to incept them all, all works in SCS will become wastes. Just not need to talk about the Chinese retaliation first, imagine the reaction when nearly 450 tomahawks straight to your military headquarters.

(If that is real, you also oughta imagine the loss of 45 billion USD to destroy only island targets, not the Chinese continent)

1.5M usd can buy you about 1.5 less percise DF-11gai (ER for Okiniwa and Northern Japan) or 3 DF-11 capable of reaching US Army unit in Korea. I guess if Chinese detected 450 tomahawks coming, they will launch 700+ DF-11s, DF-15s to Okiniwa and other US armed force in Japan targets, if mainland target was hit, the US army units in Korea will be showered with older DF-11s in stock. Remeber, they fire 72 of them to qualify a brigade for FOC. Why not shoot some more if mainland is showered with tomahawks? It's getting old anyway and Pakistan army can only buy a limited number of old ones even at a reduced price.

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

(If that is real, you also oughta imagine the loss of 45 billion USD to destroy only island targets, not the Chinese continent)

Erm, not really. TLAMs only cost about $1.5 million a piece, so you're looking at $675 mission to empty 3 SSGNs (assuming they're fully stocked).

That scenario brings up the point that the fortifications on the islands are not that useful when it comes to open conflict with a peer level adversary. I don't remember where I read this, but someone called them "aircraft carriers without any of the benefits of an aircraft carrier". All of the nations involved in the SCS dispute are improving their infrastructure on the islands, not with the intent of surviving a near-peer exchange, but with better projecting military presence in peacetime. The forward island airstrips give the PRC the ability to forward stage fighters, MPAs and coast guard vessels, improving their operational tempo in the Spratlys. This increase in operational tempo allows the Chinese deterrent against the Vietnamese, Philippines and Malaysia.

Okiniwa is also a set of islands. It is with in of range of Chinese BMs, some of them are cheaper than tatical tomahawk. Still US armed force and Japan SDF are packing units into them. They need to show political will, it is not just military planning.

ORIGINAL: Hongjian
The question should rather be: What is the endgame that the US is striving for?

Respect for UNCLOS and some kind of negotiated settlement on the use of the islands and surrounding waters, ideally making using of the established international system and within existing international norms, with no bloodshed would be ideal.

With no bloodshed under their own agendas is what they (not just a particular country, which I bother not to imply) are actually doing for now.

But again. More missiles and tactics, less dramas and politics.

Well Alan, you've basically discovered why the US hasn't blown the Chinese fortifications away [;)]. As SeaQueen has pointed out, the US has the most to gain by maintaining the status-quo.

I will however, draw difference with your comparison of Okinawa to the fortifications, at say, Fiery Cross. Okinawa is an actual island, home to over a million people and dozens of military installations. This is in comparison to Fiery Cross, a reef that has no natural above-water features. Not only does the international community see a huge difference legally between the two, there are probably more individual target points on Okinawa than on all of China's fortified possessions in the Spratlys.

Also, I can't seem to find a source that would show that the DF-11 has the range to even make it to Okinawa, or South Korea. They've got the range to hit Taiwan and that's about it. Even the DF-15 would have to stretch to hit Okinawa from their normal deployed positions opposite Taiwan.

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam
Also, I can't seem to find a source that would show that the DF-11 has the range to even make it to Okinawa, or South Korea. They've got the range to hit Taiwan and that's about it. Even the DF-15 would have to stretch to hit Okinawa from their normal deployed positions opposite Taiwan.

India and Vietnam won't think DF-1X series are jokes though. South Korea is definitely enough range to get in there, considering the DF-15's 1100KM range.

But guys, you also forget Chinese CRUISE missiles. DF-10 is also very eager to skim down some targets as well.

Again, source on that range for the DF-15? Missilethreat.com and APA both call it at a ~700km range. While they theoretically have the range to reach SK and Vietnam, we know that's not where they're deployed. China has almost all of it's SRBMs placed near Taiwan. Source, Page 7

Hmm, I got the wrong source?

But back to the SCS for now, unless you perfer the entire Asia is a battleground.

"Play the Fool" scenario is also pretty good. [8D]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam
Well Alan, you've basically discovered why the US hasn't blown the Chinese fortifications away [;)]. As SeaQueen has pointed out, the US has the most to gain by maintaining the status-quo.

It's not just the US. Beyond China, the Philippines and Vietnam, the rest of the world would strongly prefer there not be a shooting war in the Spratly Islands, or nations threatening other nation's shipping, fishing, or other industries there. War is bad for business! They'd rather everyone get along, play nicely, work out some kind of bargain diplomatically, and make some money. Beyond that, nobody would care about a bunch of coral reefs in the Pacific.

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

Officially, the US is neutral in this dispute, supporting no single nation's claim to the islands. The US government supports the UNCLOS. I think it would be a mistake to assume that a US intervention in a Chinese land-grab would necessarily mean supporting one nation's claim over the other. It could also represent the position that a warlike resolution of the dispute is unacceptable. The end-game might be some sort of mediated resolution between the interested parties or a restoration of the status quo (they're "nobody's islands" in practice).

It's like, during the first Gulf War, the US remained neutral on the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. It merely took the position that conquering Kuwait and deposing the royal family was unacceptable. The goal was to restore the Kuwaiti royal family, push the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, and restore the borders to their pre-war state.

I suspect a Spratly conflict would most likely have similar limited goals, where US/Coalition victory doesn't mean that the Philippines, ROC, or Vietnam gets the islands. It just means a restoration of the status quo, which while not ideal to the conflict's participants, probably is more preferable to all parties than any single party controlling them.

(actually, the ROC claims an even larger swath of the SCS: 11-dashes) as The People's Republic of China simply by the virtue of still being "The Republic of China" in official name. Expectedly, they do not recognize the arbitration filed against China's claim by the Philippines and supported by the US, as it would mean to give up their own claims over the SCS.

The problem at hand is that SCS claimants already have land-grabbed the islands decades before (with China not even being the one who controls the most - it's Vietnam).

So, China didnt really land-grab anything in the last few years, but only fortified their existing 'possessions' (and that, in reaction to the fortification and reclaimation efforts of Vietnam and the Philippines who did it before China).
Even though global media likes to portray China's reclaimation as a provokation that could spark war, it really wouldnt, if seen objectively.




The only way for the SCS dispute to spin out of control is to have either country try to invade and annex an island that is being controled by another country.


If it is China who does it, the US would have all the reason to intervene. But there's basically no reason for China to do it, as the islands she is currently controling are offering her a pretty comfortable position to monitor and control maritime traffic in the SCS.

But what happens if Philippines and Vietnam does it, who assume that the US gave them a chèque en blanc to 'retake' what they see to be theirs due to the power overmatch against the PLAN? What if one of these two countries see China in a weaker position vis a vis the United States and use this to do the land-grab? What if thes two countries actually attack Taiwanese possessions in the SCS? Would the US fire at them and risk the anti-chinese alliance?

The entire issue isnt so simple. You cannot just portray it as "operation to defend innocent countries against China's illegal land grab", since objectively, there werent any land grabs in the first place.

I just suggest that any scenario should respect the complexity of this entire issue and wont try to merely reenact some simplicistic Tom Clancy-esque scenario. It would make it much more interesting, and enables the realistic portrayal of low-intensity engagements. I just hope that a 'ramming' mechanic will be implemented by that time, since that's probably the most likely action which could lead to some sort of low level escalation.

Great useful map for making scenarios. Thank you!

I am working on a couple of Spratly Island scenarios right now...
Trying to get a balance of power is not easy if the U.S. can operate of the Philippine Islands. I have had to diplomatically isolate them for their to be a reasonably balanced scenario.

One of them attempts to get an MOB platform out of Dodge... [:)][;)]