The PRC bandits have to attack Andersen or they can't even mount a credible blackmail of the RoCs. Its the one US base that is within heavy bomber range of their assembly areas and rocket bombardment sites. Even with Tomahawks we can mount an unacceptable (to them) deterrent.

Andersen has to go. Guaranteed opening move.  Therefore smoking hole.

Herald

 

The PRC bandits have to attack Andersen or they can't even mount a credible blackmail of the RoCs. Its the one US base that is within heavy bomber range of their assembly areas and rocket bombardment sites. Even with Tomahawks we can mount an unacceptable (to them) deterrent.

Andersen has to go. Guaranteed opening move.  Therefore smoking hole.

Interesting positions ReactivE. While I do disagree with you about China's options for diversifying their investments, I also think you have a very interesting viewpoint with regard to China's ability to handle internal security. It seems that in the West we have a tendency to overestimate how much like us people in other countries want to be. Sure, they wear our denim, listen to pop music and surf the Internet. But there are still profound cultural differences. One of those differences is obviously tolerance for hardship. While I don't see the PRC as an evil and oppressive regime, they are certainly more authoritarian than anything we would be used to. I think there's a time and any authoritarian form of government history where significant portions of the population will rise up in protest for some reason. In modern times, with regard to China, that was the Tian an men Square massacre. The Chinese government demonstrated that it can successfully put down very large-scale uprising, endure internal and external pressures and survive international sanctions. So I'm inclined to agree that we may be underestimating the ability of the Chinese to handle the misfortunes of war with regard to internal security. Military and security issues are my expertise so I feel more comfortable discussing this aspect of your post that I do the economic references. I'll have to do some research and get back to you with regard to China's options on investments in our ability to do business elsewhere. However, I strongly suspect China would suffer far worse than the United States. The particularly astute observation you made is in reference to the United States presidency. Because we do have a very short four-year election cycle, first-term presidents are particularly susceptible to economic pressures. That is a vulnerability we would be well advised to consider given our form of government.

-DA 

Just a note to add, looking at some data on Chinese energy generation.

 

Total capacity in 2004 was 440 gigawatts (this is likely to be closer to 500 currently, by 2020 it should be 1TW.

 

Total Three Gorges Dam generating potential (when additional turbines are added) 22.5 gigawatts.

 

So this would be a 5% or so decrease, which as Herald says, is significant for industry, my personal guess would be that they would implement wide-sweeping cuts in domestic supply in affected regions and channel all available energy supplies to industry/military as needed. Probably significant but not (in my opinion) decisive.

 

ReactivE

 

Okay, I think I understand that background to your point.  However, what you still left ambiguous to my mind, that is, what I am still not able to figure out from your additional comments, is just how the Chinese do this?  Once again, if they do it by nuking Andersen, fine, I agree they have the capability to do so and at that point the gloves come off in terms of our response.  However, then yes you have moved the goalposts.  If, as you say, you have not moved them, and therefore you only mean the Chinese use non-WMD, then I have a problem with accepting that conclusion to that scenario.  I agree Andersen is very important, but I don't see how China can reasonably hope to do much of anything to it in a non-WMD-only scenario.

 

Destroy parked aircraft, the tank farm, the bomb dump, scatter mines, and KILL people. Hit the power house, and knock out the base radars. I don't think they can handle runway fracturing with a cruise missile strike, but they sure can degrade soft structure including hitting the barracks and base housing. The key to knocking out an airbase is to kill people, fuel, bombs, and  AIRCRAFT. Runways and shelters are not that critical as the people and aircraft are.

So, more F22's?

 

The last thing China would do, even with economic consequences is start a war it looked likely on paper to lose, the F22 provides the answer to that question, if it is marginal it has less of a deterent effect.  It is worth having more in order to provide every military analyst in China with enough data to see that the USAF is utterly dominant during any potential conflict, that way, they'll never seriously consider putting it to the acid test.

-DA 

 

 

Whilst a strike on the Three-Gorges dam is possible in a full-scale strategic conflict it is hard to imagine it being an option ont the table in anything other than total-war. The humanitarian disaster that would unfold would lead to huge ramifications - Herald is correct in the sense that China is heavily reliant on this 22GW installation for power, irrigation, water supply, but wrong (in my opinion) about the scale of effect it would have on the chinese warfighting capability, China is actually one of the few nations that has the ability to RAPIDLY add surplus generation capacity to its grid - the oft-cited "three coal fired powerstations a week" is somewhat overstating the situation but 22GW isn't actually a significant percentage of the domestic energy consumption.

Not true. Check where the coal mines are!

There is a problem for China when the Yangtze flooding occurs!

 

Historically, even in the 20th century they have dealt with several natural disasters that have had death tolls in the millions. It is not to say that its effects would not be catastrophic, but the crisis would primarily be humanitarian, rather than military - for a nation that treats its entire population as a never-ending resource, it would be stirring the hornets nest.

 

The current Chinese population in URBAN areas has not seen this kind of disater in a generation. Their manufacturing is where?

 

 A lot of them have, because most of the people in chinese urban areas are economic migrants from poor rural areas, the urban middle-classes would get in line, I don't think shanghai would be adversely affected, again, as long as the breach didn't happen during a sustained low in the wet-season.

 

 

 

Having been across China I think that we often forget the degree to which the population is disinterested in foreign policy, it is a nation that, at least at the societal level, is introspective in the extreme, most people are far more interested in emulating  newfound capitalist ambition and improving their respective domestic prospects.

 

Hence why I distinguish between the PRC bandits and the Chinese people.

 

In other words, a major infrastructural attack on a project that is both a major symbol of aspiration and achievement (somewhat like the great wall in many eyes), and an essential resource for the development of the region (hubei, and obviously Shanghai). It would turn the chinese population towards nationalism, would be regarded as a war crime without parallel. Given that China IS developing at pace, it would lead to an entire generation of 1+billion people having a hatred of the US that would exceed that seen in the muslim world.

 

Maybe. But that posit only hold if we attack FIRST. Once the PRC aggression is established there cannot be any illusions even among the Chinese that all bets are off.

 

Suitable only for use when the alternative is nuclear, it would be counterproductive in the extreme. I think we have to remember that the Chinese population is broadly pro-western, they are nationalistic on demand, when prompted to be so for publicity, but fundamentally admire the values and ideals of the west, just as we should (if we have any sense) admire many of the values they hold dear. When you look at the relative freedoms that people enjoy in the cities relative to 20 years ago it is to be hoped that the new, ambitious, outspoken middle class will have more impact on policy at the national level, until that point, the last thing we would ever want to do, in any conflict, would be to reverse course, accrue the combined hatred and resentment of a nation that is, at some point (40 years?), going to have technological parity with the west, believe it.

 

Disagree. They are CHINESE.

 

BW, China isn't afraid of a full scale strategic nuclear war? 

 

China has a relatively small nuclear stockpile, estimates are often conservative but it certainly doesn't have the capability that many people ignorantly assume it to.

 

In other words, it would come out far worse for China than the US by an order of magnitude (assuming no russian involvement).

 

I can guarantee that if it goes nuclear, we have enough to destroy that nation state. 

 

When you look at the value of current chinese reserves of USD, you can see that china already has its own "nuclear" option, the effect of which would lead to a price crash never before seen, I think the biggest single factor in averting conflict between the US and PRC is the level of economic reliance that exists between the two countries.

 

Dollars mean nothing in war. We were technically bankrupt in 1943 (as was Germany, Japan, and Britain) and and yet we still all fought a world war to conclusion. The measure is PRODUCTION capacity. Future generations have to foot the future bills. The PRCs don't have the capital reserves the emergency production capacity (it takes three years to build an electric plant-even a coal fired one-in a war that will last six months?)  

 

In other words, china has the ability to virtually bankrupt the US economy, they know it, we know it, it's a far more potent potential "strike" than hitting the three-gorges.

 

No demand, no supply. 25% of China's factories are now IDLE. Who hurts here? Not the PRC bbandits:  the Chinese people.

 

Herald

 

I understand the critical nodes of an airbase, the basics of weaponeering and munitions effectiveness, and where to place the DMPIs.  I mean that the Chinese can't accomplish this with their current nor even their future force structure.

 

There is a disconnect between what the Chinese want/need to do to Andersen on one hand, and what in reality they can actually accomplish on the other hand.  Ain't gonna happen.

 

 

Sift the WHEAT from the chaff. The new H-6 Ks amd Ms exist.

 

Yes, but wheras we have (in our countries) many differing viewpoints, it will be presented to the chinese people, without exception, as a crime akin to genocide, and used to whip up nationalist fervor and sentiment for generations to come.

Japanese people are ethnically chinese, they benefitted from US assistance after WWII, china has essentially had a few decades of industrialisation, coupled with massive overpopulation, but considering they have gone from pre-industrial to the leading industrial nation on earth, I think you shouldn't assume that the produce from their "very young" manufacturing base is not going to improve. Consider also 10 million hard science graduates per year, millions more in engineering, universities that have far stricter entrance criteria than Oxbridge, and a space program, and I think you will be surprised how people's perceptions of china differ in 40 years time, in much the same way as we don't necessarily base our own expecations of domestic produce on the cotton and steel mills of yesteryear.

Its a self defense force at the intercontinental level. At the IRBM level it approaches OFFENSE.

Agreed

And more to spare, the merciful thing is that because their total stockpiles are small full scale devestation wouldn't be on the table, just a pre-emptive strike.











They mean a lot in war, they determine whether your population is willing to suffer the personal and immediate consequences of a domestic economic collapse. I'm not saying that the armed forces would simply vanish, but they would become less sustainable to a modern nation. It's not quite the same as WW2 for several reasons, notably the dollar wasn't the world's reserve currency then, we had comparatively cheaper resources in almost every measurable area, as well as a vast underexploited manufacturing base. Re: building new power stations, my point is that they are adding capacity to the extent that new power stations already in process and completed on a weekly basis (as well as the fact the grid has been updated hugely throughout the entire area to be flexible) would take up a lot of the slack. Currently the three gorges produces (based on 1998) only 3 percent of domestic supply, as opposed to 5 percent in 2004...

That is the point, 25 percent of manufacturing capability is knocked out, no major unrest, apply that same situation to the US or Europe and think about the consequences, they are more resilient by an order of magnitude.

Regards,

 

ReactivE

Agree in principle.  Chinas water problems are actually more significant than their demand and need for energy solutions to keep pace with their economic needs.  They've been desperately trying to purchase french, american and australian water quality management technologies for years because of the desperate situation they're in (esp north, nth west, west, south western regions).  The sanctity and integrity of their existing water resources is paramount.

eg they have desertification issues encroaching upon Beijing at the rate of 5km per year - within a generation,  Beijing could end up with the desert if not surrounding it, then at least on its doorstep.  Maintaining a water resource for the populace, let alone for maintaining industry, let alone feeding and cooling its energy systems.

Its because of this that I think that any attack on an infrastructure that was not clearly defensible as a military target would trigger a significant response.

of course that assumes that its hit total war and that the gloves have been taken off and the International conventions (eg Berne, Geneva etc...) governing legitimacy of action have been abandoned. :) 

 In fact, a lot of Chinese military modernization has been geared toward countering these threats to their interest

 

Agreed, it's been highlighted (and refuted by the PRC) by several DOD reports, I think that the last thing you want to do is to provide them with exactly the threat scenario that they have been training for, undetectable aircraft emerging from regions outside the battle groups with extended range and refueling can achieve persistent early-warning and air dominance that, if not impossible, isn't the primary design objective of the F35.

 

I'm pretty sure that the major point of any military system is that it shouldn't, if possible be produced in quantities that can not absorb the risks associated with being stationed in potentially targetable locations. It makes the weapon a high-value, attrition-sensitive asset when it really should be the primary air-asset. 

 

But I do take your point, the USN is what China fear.

 

 

What I am reaonably confident of is that China could mitigate this in the dry season by lowering the height of the lake even more than does when it flushes in preparation for the wet season. This would remove hydro-capacity but would, in the dry season, restore the downriver area to pre-dam levels and flow volume.

 

 Taipei political and military leaders have recently suggested acquiring weapon systems
capable of standoff strikes against the Chinese mainland as a cost-effective means of
deterrence. Taiwan?s Air Force already has a latent capability for airstrikes against
China. Leaders have publicly cited the need for ballistic and land-attack cruise missiles.
Since Taipei cannot match Beijing?s ability to field offensive systems, proponents of
strikes against the mainland apparently hope that merely presenting credible threats to
China?s urban population or high- value targets, such as the Three Gorges Dam, will deter
Chinese military coercion.

 

 

maybe it is an achilles heel, it's hard to imagine Taiwan worrying too much about the chinese population when they're being hit by hundreds of thousands of submunitions and associated civilian casualties.

 

 Echo your sentiments re: intelligent discourse, surprised to learn that the DOD has clearly (and publically) mentioned it as a possible target (for taiwan, of course).

 

 

ReactivE