Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
India Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: US, China, India flex muscle over energy-critical sea lanes
Jawan    10/4/2006 11:12:17 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061004/pl_afp/uschinaindiamilitaryenergy_061004134103 by P. Parameswaran Wed Oct 4, 9:41 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States, China and India are moving to assert control over the sea lanes through which they receive critical energy supplies amid fears in Beijing of a US blockade of the Malacca Strait in the event of a crisis over Taiwan, experts said. The United States at present has vast control over the major so-called "choke points" on the world's sea lanes, said experts at a recent forum in Washington. Almost all of China's energy imports are obtained through sea and it is worried the United States could hold its oil supply hostage. Beijing is also concerned over its gradually weakening position in the Indian Ocean as New Delhi develops new generations of weapons systems with US support. Moreover, China's naval modernization has focused largely on preparing for possible armed conflict over Taiwan than defending its very long sea lanes, experts said. While it may be difficult for the US navy to interrupt China's sea lanes, "these appear vulnerable" in the eyes of the Chinese military, said Bernard Cole of the US National War College. He said China's energy routes were most vulnerable not on the high seas, but at transit points through several narrow straits. They include Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, the 9-Degree Channel in the Northern Indian ocean, Malacca and Luzon straits in Southeast Asia, and the Taiwan Strait, a possible battleground between China and the United States. "The most likely tactic for the United States to employ would be a blockade of Chinese oil port terminals, or of these choke points," Cole said. But should the United States attempt to interrupt the sea lanes, "it would almost certainly mean directly attacking China, directly attacking other nations, interfering with the peacetime passage of third-country tankers at sea, or all of the above," he warned. Chinese strategists have expressed fear in recent reports that in the event of a crisis between Washington and Beijing over Taiwan, the United States could blockade the Malacca Strait and hold 80 percent of Chinese energy imports hostage. As evidence of such a scenario, they pointed to Washington's so called regional maritime security initiative in the Malacca Strait as a first step by the US military to "garrison the Strait" under the guise of "counter-terrorist measures." Beijing regards Taiwan as a renegade province awaiting reunification but any attack on the island could see a response from the United States, which is bound by law to help defend Taipei. "A focus of Chinese concern has been on the security -- or, more properly, the insecurity -- of the sea lines of communication upon which almost all of China's energy imports travel," said Daniel Blumenthal, a former senior Pentagon official eyeing China's growing military might. China's strategists, he said, were aware Beijing did not exercise naval superiority through the seas linking its ports to the major oil producers in the Middle East. They also know that China was dependent upon the United States and other major powers on ensuring the safe flow of its energy imports, he said. "If China truly does not trust the US and its allies to provide for the security of the SLOCs (sea lines of communication) and is too suspicious to join in common efforts over the long term, it must develop the military capabilities to challenge them," Blumenthal said. Some Western experts believe China is attempting to develop naval capabilities that would allow it to provide security for its oil shipments and project power into the Indian and Pacific oceans. The Pentagon has identified a so-called Chinese "string of pearls" strategy in which a network of bases along sea lanes is being set up. While pursuing this, China is suspicious the United States would use India, with its powerful navy, as a potential balancing force against it. The two democratic allies are already carrying out joint anti-terror patrols along the Malacca Strait, straddling Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore. "The strategic consequences of IndiaÂ’s growing naval power are clear. Every additional barrel of oil that China imports leaves Beijing more vulnerable to a disruption of the sea lanes," said Christopher Griffin of the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington based think tank. "If Delhi's naval modernization effort turns the Indian Ocean into India's ocean, the risk for Beijing may grow unacceptable," he said.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3
mithradates       10/19/2006 11:41:32 PM








In a time of war it is legal to attack ships supplying your enemy on the high seas. Addtionally, I doubt china buys oil by the 1/2 or 1/4 tanker and it is easy enough to get intelligence on where a particular tanker is going.  After a one or two China bound tankers goes down or is turned around, shipping companies will not send any more tankers into a hot zone.

Cutting off China's oil would not damage the rest of the oil market.  The Arabs will still sell to the US and the EU.  India could still take oil.  Australia would find eager suppliers in Latin America who no longer could ship to China.  Yep, Hugo Chavez would quickly forget about his "socialist allies" in Beijing when Oz delegates show up with cash (and advanced technologies) in hand.  Chavez still sells lots and lots of oil to the US.  China's loss of oil, even by 25% to 35% would shut down the economy...back to smelting pig iron in the village forge.



India's placements are rather foolish.  They do need to start thinking strategically, but despite India's long history, "Great Gamesmanship" seems to have bypassed them.  Fortunately, in a few short years there will probably be 1-2 full sized USAF bases in India.  Count on B52 cruise missile strikes from planes based in Diego Garcia as well as 1-2 CBGs launching sorties.  The PLAN cannot fight in blue water.


Whether it comes from African or the middle east, the tankers have to cross the Indian Ocean which means Diego Garcia.  China also has extensive central asian pipelines, easy targets for Tomahawks.  The US also has extensive bio-diesel tech.  I'd say close to half of commercial truck stops sell biodiesel in the US, independent truckers swear by it.  E85 is also becoming widely available and ethanol pipelines are beginning construction alongside petro-pipelines.  And unlike petro-refineries, small ethanol refineries are popping up everywhere in Canada and the US, most run by independent operators instead of BIG STATE PLANNED PROJECTS.
Yeah, keep believing propaganda about China's weening dependence on oil, most of those planned reactors will need water to run, but China's water is horribly scarce and completely unfit for use.  There is also alot of haggling over tech transfers. 
Got any big character proganda to share with us?













 



Shipping would continue between Latin America, Europe, the US and Africa.  We would still get our goods, though they would be a bit more expensive, but that would force americans to save more (good) as well as shift manufacturing from Asia to Africa and Latin America, both of whom will be extremely happy and willing.  So there will be winners. BTW, the unemployment rate during the Great Depression was 33% and the US still stood.

And you should know that aside from Europe, neither Latin America nor Africa has significant industrial capacities.  Not even close to the kind of capacity present within East Asia.  And Europe, due to their economic structure, would be hard pressed to supply the even a fraction of the kind of consumer goods base that the U.S service economy needs to survive.  During the depression, the U.S still had a largely regional/enclosed economy and a much larger industrial base.  The amount of interconnectivity with other economic centers is many times the size that it was in the 30s.  One can easily see a U.S unemployment jump to unacceptable levels within weeks if not days of such a foolish action.

In a time of war it is legal to attack ships supplying your enemy on the high seas. Addtionally, I doubt china buys oil by the 1/2 or 1/4 tanker and it is easy enough to get intelligence on where a particular tanker is going.  After a one or two China bound tankers goes down or is turned around, shipping companies will not send any more tankers into a hot zone.

Do you even understand how modern supertankers work?  Within each supertanker there are separate storage tanks with individual payloads for each customer port.  A tanker ship usually hits multiple ports in multiple countries in a single trip.  Not only that, to increase efficiency, most tankers dubbs as container transport and resource freight ships during their various stops.  That
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates       10/19/2006 11:43:12 PM








In a time of war it is legal to attack ships supplying your enemy on the high seas. Addtionally, I doubt china buys oil by the 1/2 or 1/4 tanker and it is easy enough to get intelligence on where a particular tanker is going.  After a one or two China bound tankers goes down or is turned around, shipping companies will not send any more tankers into a hot zone.

Cutting off China's oil would not damage the rest of the oil market.  The Arabs will still sell to the US and the EU.  India could still take oil.  Australia would find eager suppliers in Latin America who no longer could ship to China.  Yep, Hugo Chavez would quickly forget about his "socialist allies" in Beijing when Oz delegates show up with cash (and advanced technologies) in hand.  Chavez still sells lots and lots of oil to the US.  China's loss of oil, even by 25% to 35% would shut down the economy...back to smelting pig iron in the village forge.



India's placements are rather foolish.  They do need to start thinking strategically, but despite India's long history, "Great Gamesmanship" seems to have bypassed them.  Fortunately, in a few short years there will probably be 1-2 full sized USAF bases in India.  Count on B52 cruise missile strikes from planes based in Diego Garcia as well as 1-2 CBGs launching sorties.  The PLAN cannot fight in blue water.


Whether it comes from African or the middle east, the tankers have to cross the Indian Ocean which means Diego Garcia.  China also has extensive central asian pipelines, easy targets for Tomahawks.  The US also has extensive bio-diesel tech.  I'd say close to half of commercial truck stops sell biodiesel in the US, independent truckers swear by it.  E85 is also becoming widely available and ethanol pipelines are beginning construction alongside petro-pipelines.  And unlike petro-refineries, small ethanol refineries are popping up everywhere in Canada and the US, most run by independent operators instead of BIG STATE PLANNED PROJECTS.
Yeah, keep believing propaganda about China's weening dependence on oil, most of those planned reactors will need water to run, but China's water is horribly scarce and completely unfit for use.  There is also alot of haggling over tech transfers. 
Got any big character proganda to share with us?













 



Shipping would continue between Latin America, Europe, the US and Africa.  We would still get our goods, though they would be a bit more expensive, but that would force americans to save more (good) as well as shift manufacturing from Asia to Africa and Latin America, both of whom will be extremely happy and willing.  So there will be winners. BTW, the unemployment rate during the Great Depression was 33% and the US still stood.

And you should know that aside from Europe, neither Latin America nor Africa has significant industrial capacities.  Not even close to the kind of capacity present within East Asia.  And Europe, due to their economic structure, would be hard pressed to supply the even a fraction of the kind of consumer goods base that the U.S service economy needs to survive.  During the depression, the U.S still had a largely regional/enclosed economy and a much larger industrial base.  The amount of interconnectivity with other economic centers is many times the size that it was in the 30s.  One can easily see a U.S unemployment jump to unacceptable levels within weeks if not days of such a foolish action.

In a time of war it is legal to attack ships supplying your enemy on the high seas. Addtionally, I doubt china buys oil by the 1/2 or 1/4 tanker and it is easy enough to get intelligence on where a particular tanker is going.  After a one or two China bound tankers goes down or is turned around, shipping companies will not send any more tankers into a hot zone.

Do you even understand how modern supertankers work?  Within each supertanker there are separate storage tanks with individual payloads for each customer port.  A tanker ship usually hits multiple ports in multiple countries in a single trip.  Not only that, to increase efficiency, most tankers dubbs as container transport and resource freight ships during their various stops.  That
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates       10/19/2006 11:55:04 PM








In a time of war it is legal to attack ships supplying your enemy on the high seas. Addtionally, I doubt china buys oil by the 1/2 or 1/4 tanker and it is easy enough to get intelligence on where a particular tanker is going.  After a one or two China bound tankers goes down or is turned around, shipping companies will not send any more tankers into a hot zone.

Cutting off China's oil would not damage the rest of the oil market.  The Arabs will still sell to the US and the EU.  India could still take oil.  Australia would find eager suppliers in Latin America who no longer could ship to China.  Yep, Hugo Chavez would quickly forget about his "socialist allies" in Beijing when Oz delegates show up with cash (and advanced technologies) in hand.  Chavez still sells lots and lots of oil to the US.  China's loss of oil, even by 25% to 35% would shut down the economy...back to smelting pig iron in the village forge.



India's placements are rather foolish.  They do need to start thinking strategically, but despite India's long history, "Great Gamesmanship" seems to have bypassed them.  Fortunately, in a few short years there will probably be 1-2 full sized USAF bases in India.  Count on B52 cruise missile strikes from planes based in Diego Garcia as well as 1-2 CBGs launching sorties.  The PLAN cannot fight in blue water.


Whether it comes from African or the middle east, the tankers have to cross the Indian Ocean which means Diego Garcia.  China also has extensive central asian pipelines, easy targets for Tomahawks.  The US also has extensive bio-diesel tech.  I'd say close to half of commercial truck stops sell biodiesel in the US, independent truckers swear by it.  E85 is also becoming widely available and ethanol pipelines are beginning construction alongside petro-pipelines.  And unlike petro-refineries, small ethanol refineries are popping up everywhere in Canada and the US, most run by independent operators instead of BIG STATE PLANNED PROJECTS.
Yeah, keep believing propaganda about China's weening dependence on oil, most of those planned reactors will need water to run, but China's water is horribly scarce and completely unfit for use.  There is also alot of haggling over tech transfers. 
Got any big character proganda to share with us?













 



Shipping would continue between Latin America, Europe, the US and Africa.  We would still get our goods, though they would be a bit more expensive, but that would force americans to save more (good) as well as shift manufacturing from Asia to Africa and Latin America, both of whom will be extremely happy and willing.  So there will be winners. BTW, the unemployment rate during the Great Depression was 33% and the US still stood.

And you should know that aside from Europe, neither Latin America nor Africa has significant industrial capacities.  Not even close to the kind of capacity present within East Asia.  And Europe, due to their economic structure, would be hard pressed to supply the even a fraction of the kind of consumer goods base that the U.S service economy needs to survive.  During the depression, the U.S still had a largely regional/enclosed economy and a much larger industrial base.  The amount of interconnectivity with other economic centers is many times the size that it was in the 30s.  One can easily see a U.S unemployment jump to unacceptable levels within weeks if not days of such a foolish action.

In a time of war it is legal to attack ships supplying your enemy on the high seas. Addtionally, I doubt china buys oil by the 1/2 or 1/4 tanker and it is easy enough to get intelligence on where a particular tanker is going.  After a one or two China bound tankers goes down or is turned around, shipping companies will not send any more tankers into a hot zone.

Do you even understand how modern supertankers work?  Within each supertanker there are separate storage tanks with individual payloads for each customer port.  A tanker ship usually hits multiple ports in multiple countries in a single trip.  Not only that, to increase efficiency, most tankers dubbs as container transport and resource freight ships during their various stops.  That
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates       10/19/2006 11:55:32 PM








In a time of war it is legal to attack ships supplying your enemy on the high seas. Addtionally, I doubt china buys oil by the 1/2 or 1/4 tanker and it is easy enough to get intelligence on where a particular tanker is going.  After a one or two China bound tankers goes down or is turned around, shipping companies will not send any more tankers into a hot zone.

Cutting off China's oil would not damage the rest of the oil market.  The Arabs will still sell to the US and the EU.  India could still take oil.  Australia would find eager suppliers in Latin America who no longer could ship to China.  Yep, Hugo Chavez would quickly forget about his "socialist allies" in Beijing when Oz delegates show up with cash (and advanced technologies) in hand.  Chavez still sells lots and lots of oil to the US.  China's loss of oil, even by 25% to 35% would shut down the economy...back to smelting pig iron in the village forge.



India's placements are rather foolish.  They do need to start thinking strategically, but despite India's long history, "Great Gamesmanship" seems to have bypassed them.  Fortunately, in a few short years there will probably be 1-2 full sized USAF bases in India.  Count on B52 cruise missile strikes from planes based in Diego Garcia as well as 1-2 CBGs launching sorties.  The PLAN cannot fight in blue water.


Whether it comes from African or the middle east, the tankers have to cross the Indian Ocean which means Diego Garcia.  China also has extensive central asian pipelines, easy targets for Tomahawks.  The US also has extensive bio-diesel tech.  I'd say close to half of commercial truck stops sell biodiesel in the US, independent truckers swear by it.  E85 is also becoming widely available and ethanol pipelines are beginning construction alongside petro-pipelines.  And unlike petro-refineries, small ethanol refineries are popping up everywhere in Canada and the US, most run by independent operators instead of BIG STATE PLANNED PROJECTS.
Yeah, keep believing propaganda about China's weening dependence on oil, most of those planned reactors will need water to run, but China's water is horribly scarce and completely unfit for use.  There is also alot of haggling over tech transfers. 
Got any big character proganda to share with us?













 



Shipping would continue between Latin America, Europe, the US and Africa.  We would still get our goods, though they would be a bit more expensive, but that would force americans to save more (good) as well as shift manufacturing from Asia to Africa and Latin America, both of whom will be extremely happy and willing.  So there will be winners. BTW, the unemployment rate during the Great Depression was 33% and the US still stood.

And you should know that aside from Europe, neither Latin America nor Africa has significant industrial capacities.  Not even close to the kind of capacity present within East Asia.  And Europe, due to their economic structure, would be hard pressed to supply the even a fraction of the kind of consumer goods base that the U.S service economy needs to survive.  During the depression, the U.S still had a largely regional/enclosed economy and a much larger industrial base.  The amount of interconnectivity with other economic centers is many times the size that it was in the 30s.  One can easily see a U.S unemployment jump to unacceptable levels within weeks if not days of such a foolish action.

In a time of war it is legal to attack ships supplying your enemy on the high seas. Addtionally, I doubt china buys oil by the 1/2 or 1/4 tanker and it is easy enough to get intelligence on where a particular tanker is going.  After a one or two China bound tankers goes down or is turned around, shipping companies will not send any more tankers into a hot zone.

Do you even understand how modern supertankers work?  Within each supertanker there are separate storage tanks with individual payloads for each customer port.  A tanker ship usually hits multiple ports in multiple countries in a single trip.  Not only that, to increase efficiency, most tankers dubbs as container transport and resource freight ships during their various stops.  That
 
Quote    Reply

25 km
 
SA-6 (Imported from USSR): 180 units =>  ~ 18 batteries => 5 Battalions
 
References:
 
Now if one looks this inventory, it becomes clear that India's CURRENT medium air defense assets are few in number and entirely imported from the USSR.  Thus, your statement that India is very strong at making SAMs are BLATENTLY FALSE.  Now as for buying SAMs, India has bought thousands of short-ranged shoulder lauched missiles that may be good for shooting down helicoptors or prop-planes, but are entirely ineffective for modern fighters and strike aircrafts.  For this scenario that I've describe, the Indian defense establishment didn't make the right choices.  If a war was to start right now, the state of India's air defense network absolutly cannot stand up to the strike options available to the PLAAF.
 
 
 
mithradates    To Jawan   10/22/2006 8:53:44 PM
"India has  a very strong capacity in making SAMs, buying SAMs, and very good practice in SHOOTING DOWN obsolete aircrafts. J7, J8, J10, J11, J12 et all will be shot down much before they ever reach any refineries"
 
In one word NO.  This is not even CLOSE to the case.  For the moment, let us count only strategic(medium to long range) SAMs.  Short range, shoulder launched manpads just isnt very effective for shooting down strike fighters, high-altitude bombers, or cruise missiles.  Even though, India's "AIR-DEFENSE" system as of right now, consist primarily of these shoulder-launched short range missiles.  So with that said India has the following Strategic assets:
 
SA-3 (Imported from USSR):  45 units => ~4 batteries => 1 Battalion
Max effective range:
Max effective range: 28 km
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       10/22/2006 10:44:49 PM
And you should know that aside from Europe, neither Latin America nor Africa has significant industrial capacities.  Not even close to the kind of capacity present within East Asia.  And Europe, due to their economic structure, would be hard pressed to supply the even a fraction of the kind of consumer goods base that the U.S service economy needs to survive.  During the depression, the U.S still had a largely regional/enclosed economy and a much larger industrial base.  The amount of interconnectivity with other economic centers is many times the size that it was in the 30s.  One can easily see a U.S unemployment jump to unacceptable levels within weeks if not days of such a foolish action.

Mexico does have excess capacity thanks to US companies shifting production from Mexico to China and SE Asia in the late 80s and 90s.  Brazil has a pretty good heavy and light industrial base and could be ramped up in a couple of months. There is also Australia to look to for production.  Yes, prices would jump anywhere from 20% to 40% and there would be shortages, but Americans really need to cut back on rampant consumption anyways.  The social safety net is also much more robust than it was in the 1930s and even though there was more industry, a crash-landed economy generated few factory orders.  There was also the "dustbowl" in the midwest.  Basically the US gov't handed out three meals a day and water as well as freezing evictions for failure to pay rent/mortgages.  A roof over your head and food in your belly is usually enough to keep you from "revolting" and it keep 33% of the population satisfied enough not to riot.  Meanwhile China would face massive unemployment to add to a heap of social ills, China would need to use most of its troops to keep the population in check instead of fighting the US/Japan/etc.


Do you even understand how modern supertankers work?  Within each supertanker there are separate storage tanks with individual payloads for each customer port.  A tanker ship usually hits multiple ports in multiple countries in a single trip.  Not only that, to increase efficiency, most tankers dubbs as container transport and resource freight ships during their various stops.  That's how the flow of energy, raw materials, and manufactured products from region to region can occur on a global scale.   Now I know that you don't have much of an engineering background.  But I have recently, regrettably, gained a bit of experience in supply chain management in my field of work, and it appears that your understanding of this field is quite neglible as well.

Though supertankers have seperate compartments, the rate of consumption of the US and China makes it a unlikely occurence that tankers arrive half full.  BTW my "specialty" is environmental engineering, which is much more "real" engineering than using shrink wrapped CSR and SCM software.  Supply chain engineering is false, fake, prettied up process flow management.

To do what you describe, would mean finding a ship that only hits Chinese ports on it's entire round trip journey, making a single stop in a middle eastern port to pick up oil.  Throw in the complication of tanker ships rountinely changing their port schedules due to real-time changes in market prices and product supply schedules.   It would be nearly impossible to find that perfect target that you describe.  Even if a patriotic Chinese shipping company  tried to do their shipping that way, their going to go down.  And not due to American missiles, but to the inherent stupidity and inefficiency of conducting shipping in the way that you described.

Then spell out the actual process, I'll bet there is at least one other poster who can give a good critique of your supply chain concepts.


As we speak, these assets do not yet exist.  And it would be an interesting sight to see the Indians allow an anglo-saxon nation's military onto their soil, a reminder of old times perhaps.  Moreover,  if the USN is in the Indian ocean, why would the PLAN even deploy there?  It would be the logical choice for the PLAN to stay within the Green Water belt and let the PLAAF and 2nd arty take out India's refineries in relative safety.


Whether it comes from African or the middle east, the tankers have to cross the Indian Ocean which means Diego Garcia.  China also has extensive central asian pipelines, easy
 
Quote    Reply

coolboyjay       10/24/2006 4:06:02 AM
hmm, India's refining capabilities:
 
Ever heard of Reliance mith? If not, then please check the word up.
 
Now about China's refineries, lets have a look at how strategicaly placed are those?
 
http://www.platts.ru/Oil/Resources/News%20Features/China/images/ChinaOilRefineries.gif">
 
 
huh? 90% is on the east coast of China as expected.. man!! the USAF would have to fly a long long way from the Japanese Bases to get there.. what a sad sight!!
 
 Now about US's dependance on China. I guess, India, Thailand and a lot of SE Asia nations would be a good option for sourcing those goods for the US. But as 50% of China's GDP comes from exports, i guess, the closure of trade ties would cripple China.
 
Quote    Reply

Sujies       11/4/2006 2:08:23 PM
Good counter posts by everybody,

This mindset of chinese taking over the world is what drags the nation down,
you see the indians build a road if they get bored riding over mud, the americans build a road
 when it helps the votes, but the chinese build so many roads its seems they plan to become a major stopover
point for a galactic highway.

I dont think the PLAN will have any reach in the Indian ocean no matter if it builds a base in pak or not
Being optimistic and assuming china parks two destroyers, two frigates and few fast ships do you think
it will win a all out naval war against the western command of  Indian navy, also don't forget they will be well
within range of  IAF.

The bases in Myanmar or Pak are at the best just a diplomatic guarrentee that you wont attack the host nation
but in all out war the micro bases will be destroyed as a formality

Its a tough fact for the chinese posters to digest, but the chinese petroleum supplies, land or sea based
will always be under the shadow of the US and Indian forces


Now lets discuss the geographical position of  the Middle kingdom :)


 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics