(01-24-2017, 05:31 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I don't think they preclude a more conventional conflict a little later on, and I don't think that conflict would necessarily escalate to a full-on nuclear exchange.  Probably wouldn't, really, for much the same reason the Korean War didn't.

(01-27-2017, 03:00 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 05:31 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I don't think they preclude a more conventional conflict a little later on, and I don't think that conflict would necessarily escalate to a full-on nuclear exchange.  Probably wouldn't, really, for much the same reason the Korean War didn't.

No.  There was no nuclear capability in the modern sense during the Korean War.  Fusion-based explosions had just been achieved, but had not yet been weaponized.  Fission bombs existed, but could only be delivered to the USSR by bomber.  They could not be delivered to the US because the Russians did not, as yet, have a delivery system.   Red China did not have the bomb, but the US lacked the many hundreds of atomic bombs that would be necessary to completely destroy China (or Russia).  The fact is, non of the belligerents at the time had the capability to go nuclear in a big way. I would not use Korea as an example.

(01-26-2017, 02:25 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 05:41 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 04:07 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Seriously, detail me the scenario that leads directly from something like Taiwan to either country launching their missiles at the other in the full knowledge of a corresponding attack on their own facilities and populations, and explain to me why it would be the only outcome.

The issue is simple. What is the point of engaging in a military conflict in which you cannot win?  Suppose Trump decided to blockcade these islands.  Can you show a path where he can win?  I don't see it, and if I see this, so do the Chinese.  They can keep pushing until Trump gives up, after all, is he going to end civilization over some fucking islands in the South China Sea?  The US considers the Carribean an American lake--what's the difference?

And this is the problem.  In the old days such issues would be resolved by all-out great power coalition wars (read Kennedy's book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers).  You can't do that now, an all-out conflict would go nuclear. So the great powers resorted to a minuet, with proxy wars to make their point.  Most of the great powers, (except for the strongest two) got a clue and pulled out, seeing it was a fools game.  Does China want to play this game?  No!  They want what I would want, sure things--like the Spratley's.  (The islands no, the principle, yes).

I literally just finished rereading Paul Kennedy.  You might want to read it again.  The middle powers tried desperately to hold on to their status, they dropped out because they could no longer compete.

You keep referencing an escalation to nuclear weapons, but you don't explain why one would occur.  Flashpoints in the region are Taiwan, the SCS, Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the Korean Penisula, issues of trade, all overlying the root issues of "fear, honor, and interest", per Thucydides.  All of those things are visibly factors in US/China tensions, and tensions between China and many of its neighbors.  What would those sorts of conflicts look like?  Nuclear launches within minutes/days of first contact?  I don't think so.

(01-27-2017, 03:05 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I think the larger point stands, in the sense that it is wholly possible for the major powers to engage in a conventional conflict without having an incentive to trade queens, as it were, and a substantial incentive (vis megadeath of their respective populations) not to.

(01-27-2017, 03:40 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The problem with the MX and for that matter, US land based ICBMs in general is that for some strange reason, the US, even with our wonders of Motor City technology, completely sucks at TELs. We've never had a TEL that can support ICBMs. Meanwhile, Russia and the PRC have really good TELs. Not only can a TEL drive anywhere there are passable roads, it can be put on a plane, a train, or a ship. That is excellent flexibility. For example, what if, airlift suddenly set up a bunch of SS-18s or DF-41s on TELs in some African country. Talk about a chess move. We can't do that. The best we can do is have a sub slowly putt its way to a point in navigable waters.

(01-27-2017, 04:18 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 03:40 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The problem with the MX and for that matter, US land based ICBMs in general is that for some strange reason, the US, even with our wonders of Motor City technology, completely sucks at TELs. We've never had a TEL that can support ICBMs. Meanwhile, Russia and the PRC have really good TELs. Not only can a TEL drive anywhere there are passable roads, it can be put on a plane, a train, or a ship. That is excellent flexibility. For example, what if, airlift suddenly set up a bunch of SS-18s or DF-41s on TELs in some African country. Talk about a chess move. We can't do that. The best we can do is have a sub slowly putt its way to a point in navigable waters.

When you use an acronym (TEL) you should spell it out in the first use, so the reader knows to what your are referring.  Otherwise what you write is incomprehensible.

(01-27-2017, 01:33 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:Disperse it where?  Read my last few words, please.  As I said, "back into the waves".  The sand would sink back to the bottom where it was dredged up from in the first place.

With respect to radiation, a bomb has a few kilograms of fissionable material, while a power reactor has a few metric tons - several orders of magnitude more.  If we could live with Fukushima without shutting down all the nuclear reactors in the world, the military will be able to live with a few bombs.  That's assuming the decision makers will have "thought this through", which isn't something to be counted on once you get into a shooting war.

Note that I'm not advocating using nukes, just pointing out how it could happen.  Keep in mind it's going to be Boomers making the ultiimate decision, not Silents who tend to think things through to the point of indecision.

So you have a reclaimed island with a massive harbor and an odd shape and one hit from a nuke and all of it is going to go right to the bottom of the sea?  Do you have any sources for this claim, some sign that this has been contemplated by anyone, or are you just pulling this out of... I don't know what?

Quote: 

Quote:We're talking about the South China Sea, not the Taiwan Strait.  The Exocet's range is about 100 miles, which doesn't buy you much in a sea that's about 1000 miles across.  That's why China is building the artificial islands.

Excuse me, but you're modifying your claim.  The original claim made by you was that nukes would need to be used because:

Quote:How does China sink a US carrier?  They don't have the conventional forces to do it.

They don't have cruise missiles, delivered by planes, submarines, and boats (range up to 300 miles from launch point)?  Anti-ship ballistic missiles fire able from land covering most of the SCS (max range of 900 miles)?  Considering the US is gaming out possible scenarios under the assumption that they shouldn't send capital ships within the first island chain, I can't help but feel that you're talking out of your hat, here.  
I'm not saying that "OMG THE CHINEZ R INVINCIBLES!" because that would be nonsense, but neither are we.  Ships would be lost, and unlike us the Chinese have the advantage of concentrating their forces, whereas ours are scattered throughout the world.  

Quote:As for the fuzzy wuzzy formula - excuse me, the "Lanchester's Square Law" as it seems to be called nowadays - try applying it to the fact that the US Navy is about 10 times the size of the Chinese Navy.  I think you'll quickly see how it supports my point that China loses any conventional naval conflict.

10 times the size of the PLAN as measured by how, tonnage?  Try half that, a third of which is taken up by the 10 (once and future? 11) supercarriers.  I don't think that's an effective proxy for combat power, particularly given the terrain.  The US Navy is moving towards a "distributed lethality" concept precisely because even small ships can carry missiles capable of sinking even larger ships.  And their ships ARE fairly numerous.
So sure thing, ignore actual Naval College models of how ship combat works in favor of going, "But, But, AMURKA!!"  "Cause what do they know? 

Quote:

Quote:The artificial islands do have the potential for making the South China Sea a no go zone for the US Navy, though, which is why they are such an issue.

How, it's not like they can carry weapons capable of sinking ships, the Chinese don't have those, amirite?

X_4AD_84 Wrote:We've never had a TEL that can support ICBMs. Meanwhile, Russia and the PRC have really good TELs. Not only can a TEL drive anywhere there are passable roads, it can be put on a plane, a train, or a ship. That is excellent flexibility.

(01-27-2017, 04:14 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I would point out that the USSR engaged in military measures against the US after WW II up to the start of Korean in 1950--all at a time when the US did not yet have a sizable nuclear capability. They stopped doing so when this changed.  After the change they operated strictly within their own sphere--backing down the one time they tried to do otherwise in Cuba.  Now I see the Chinese actions in the South China Sea as them acting in their own sphere--its like the US in the Caribbean or the USSR in Hungary.   I think they probably see this as their affair to be handled by diplomacy with the affected SE Asia nations--and none of America's business.

Quote:The blast radius of a 1MT warhead is about a mile; the crater radius is about half that.  Superimposing this on Fiery Cross Reef, one of China's three main artificial islands in the middle of the South China Sea, the crater would cover all the built up area and the middle third of the runway, and the blast radius would cover the rest.  The island would be left unusable and the depth of the crater would make it more difficult to rebuild than it was to build in the first place.

Quote:And again, I'm not advocating it; I'm just pointing out that it could happen.  If we get into a war over the South China Sea, which neoconservatives seem to want, and the choice is between losing three supercarriers taking out three artificial islands or use a few nukes, I guarantee you the admiral in charge of the men on the supercarriers is at least going to consider the nuclear option and may well advocate it.  And let's not forget the stories that were circulated back in the primary about Trump asking military experts why we don't use nuclear weapons.

Quote:If you're going to accuse me of modifying my claim, you should quote the original claim in full, which made it clear that I was talking about naval battles away from the coast.

Quote:With respect to your question, 10 times the size of their Navy in terms of comparable ships.

Quote:10 supercarriers versus 1 carrier that is not a supercarrier.

Quote:75 nuclear submarines versus a dozen, some of which are diesel, etc.

Quote:But even if we have only have 5 to 1 advantage, that still means that in an all out war, we rate to lose a few destroyers and submarines, and have a small chance of losing one carrier while destroying their entire navy.

Quote:Again, that's assuming we don't have to deal with artificial islands.

Quote:Destroyers can carry weapons capable of sinking a supercarrier, though it might take more than one destroyer's worth.  Iranian style speedboats cannot; the threat from those really small ships is suicide attacks, and even then they're more of a threat to destroyers than carriers.

Quote:Supercarriers, and maybe attack submarines, are currently the most effective vessels in today's navies on a per ton basis.

Quote:As I've said several times now, the artificial islands change the picture.  I don't classify them as naval assets because, well, they're not ships.  China doesn't classify them that way either because, well, they claim they're for peaceful uses, despite the military grade air bases.

WWII absolutely taught us that land based air beats aircraft carriers absent overwhelming odds.  That's why the artificial islands are a real threat to US maritime supremacy - much more so than the Chinese navy in its present state.

Quote:And for any people wandering here from John Xenakis' thread, this doesn't mean I think a China-US war is an especially strong candidate for the crisis war.  The smart thing would be to negotiate a win/win solution, as I outlined in an earlier post.  However, one needs to know potential worst case outcomes to establish the boundaries for negotiation.

(01-27-2017, 05:16 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

X_4AD_84 Wrote:We've never had a TEL that can support ICBMs. Meanwhile, Russia and the PRC have really good TELs. Not only can a TEL drive anywhere there are passable roads, it can be put on a plane, a train, or a ship. That is excellent flexibility.

Yes it is.  But the TELs I saw in the Wiki article Justin linked to did not show TELs carrying strategic missiles—i.e. those capable of traveling 6000+ miles to their target. Strategic weapons must be able hit their targets in short notice from anywhere in the world.  They have large ranges and are physically large. The Russian SS-18 is 95 ft long and 10 ft in diameter. Are you sure the Russians have TELs deployed that accommodate a missile of this size?  And would they be willing to place it in a 3rd world country where it could be seized by terrorists?
If so, it’s a way to do on land what a strategic nuclear sub already does-a capability the US has had for more than fifty years.

Quote:Trump wants to clamp down on free trade and globalization.  How would YOU do that?  Maybe a clever strategy would be to buddy up with Russia, who do not export goods than compete with US manufacturers, and become cold with China in the hope that you can get them to do something that sufficiently provocative to justify a trade war in response.  Such a war would crater our economy in the short term.  If we can blame it on China and point out that a recession (even a serious one) is preferable to a nuclear war, maybe Trump's base won't abandon him.

Quote:But where is the incentive to start the conventional conflict in the first place if there can be no winner.?

Quote:I would point out that the USSR engaged in military measures against the US after WW II up to the start of Korean in 1950--all at a time when the US did not yet have a sizable nuclear capability. They stopped doing so when this changed.  After the change they operated strictly within their own sphere--backing down the one time they tried to do otherwise in Cuba.  Now I see the Chinese actions in the South China Sea as them acting in their own sphere--its like the US in the Caribbean or the USSR in Hungary.   I think they probably see this as their affair to be handled by diplomacy with the affected SE Asia nations--and none of America's business. 

Quote:That is, this issue is for us what the Cuban crisis was for the Soviets.  We can't win, because they are in the geopolitical right.  Since there can be no ultimate resolution (which would require nuclear war) why would the US decide a hot war response would make sense?  Any hot war would give the results of a trade war, plus more lots of American servicemen getting killed for no damn good reason, why no just opt for the trade war, and keep all those American servicemen (that Trump says he cares about) still breathing?

(01-27-2017, 06:40 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:The blast radius of a 1MT warhead is about a mile; the crater radius is about half that.  Superimposing this on Fiery Cross Reef, one of China's three main artificial islands in the middle of the South China Sea, the crater would cover all the built up area and the middle third of the runway, and the blast radius would cover the rest.  The island would be left unusable and the depth of the crater would make it more difficult to rebuild than it was to build in the first place.

That makes more sense.  Sorry, I was getting wrapped up in the word "sink" and was immediately skeptical.

Of course, they could just as easily just bomb the runways and other facilities with conventional missiles and avoid the escalation risk.

Quote:

Quote:10 supercarriers versus 1 carrier that is not a supercarrier.

There were questions among naval strategists well throughout the second half of the 20th century that aircraft carriers may no longer be the ne plus ultra of peer-level naval warfare.  It was never put to the test, and they retain tremendous advantages in gunboat diplomacy/presence patrols/etc. so here we are.  At some point, the question will eventually be put to the test, and we'll know for sure.

Quote:

Quote:But even if we have only have 5 to 1 advantage, that still means that in an all out war, we rate to lose a few destroyers and submarines, and have a small chance of losing one carrier while destroying their entire navy.

Sure, if they just drive all of them out into the Pacific Ocean and challenge us to a duel.  Somehow, I don't think that would be the gameplan.

Quote:Again, that's assuming we don't have to deal with artificial islands.

Or, you know, the Chinese mainland.  Again, I don't think the assumption of an open ocean fight on level terms has much bearing on the likely areas of conflict (Taiwan Straits, Senkaku/Diaoyu, SCS, etc.).

(01-27-2017, 07:11 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I dunno, Mike, why did we invade Vietnam?  Iraq?  Why did the British intervene on the Continent at the outset of WWI? 

Quote:That requires local air superiority.  That's difficult to get with 10 carriers, which means 3 on station at a time.  We could surge but we'd need to get everything coordinated just right, and then stage an actual invasion so we ended up holding the territory. Or we could use cruise missiles, but cruise missiles are more expensive than run way patches, so that's a losing technique in the long term, unless it enables us to stage an invasion.

Quote:I agree it's an open question with respect to carriers versus attack submarines.  It doesn't matter that much since we've got the advantage in both - for now.

Quote:If they don't use their navy, they might as well not have built it in the first place.

Quote:As previously discussed, the Chinese mainland isn't close enough to control the entire South China Sea, especially the reaches such as near the Philippines.

The Taiwan Strait is a different story.  The relevant forces would be based on the mainland and Taiwan.

The Daoyu are basically a nearly irrelevant sideshow, serving only as a possible irrational flashpoint

Quote:From the US standpoint, it's the South China Sea that is relevant, not just for its resources, but because it contains critical routes for America's global trade empire.  The trade routes are more important to the US; the resources are more important to China.  There ought to be a win/win here somewhere; it's just a matter of whether we can get to it.

Quote:For WW I, because they thought they could win.  The British ended up winning the war.  

As for Iraq, note that this war started in 1991, not 2003.  The 2003 conflict was just a continuation of the previous one, which we justified by Iraq not living up to the agreement made at the end of the first round of hostilities in 1991.  So the decision on the Iraq war was made in 1990, when we decided to to to war against Iraq.  Out stated objective was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, which we accomplished.  If we had stuck to the original goal and signed a peace treaty with Iraq after routing his forces we would have won the war.  But we decided to move the goalposts and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

We started the Iraq war in 1991 because we thought he would win. And we did win, but then threw it all away.  It was the same silly hubris that made us think we could fight and win a war against North Vietnam with a partner that was half in the bag with the enemy. (S Vietnam was riddled with communist insurgents, while N. Vietnam did not have an anti-communist insurgent problem).  


Can the US win a war with China in the seas close to their country?  I don't think so.  What do you think? 

Quote:I would point out that in 40 years of facing down the Soviets, we never got any hubristic ideas about fighting a war with them.  But now a war with China (over exactly what) is something the Pentagon is going to advocate?  They are going to have to fight this war.  And they can't blame their loss on insurgents who hide amidst civilian populations where we can't touch them.  This will look like a straight up clash of militaries, for which there will be no excuses, it's career suicide. 

Quote:Also I have this issue with your reasonably constructed cycle concept.  The Macrodecsion phase is projected by M&T for 2025-2050.  The 4T is projected for 2006-2024.  Even with a few years of slop on both sides, there isn't a lot of overlap. As I see it, the S&H dating arguments against Macrodecision events  playing a major 4T role; the 4T should be largely over by the time the Macrodecision phase gets rolling.