China’s Plan to Beat U.S.: Missiles, Missiles and More Missiles

[akinkhoo]

yes, both side has missiles, but US has more expensive target than China, China cannot win by technical ability, they can only win by attrition and the US doesn't like the odds of that: will you risk a billion dollar warship to sink a 500 million one? waste a 100 million anti-missile to shoot down a missile that cost only 50 million?

China's goal is not to attack or invade the US mainland, it is merely to made the cost of US attacking China overwhelmingly expensive that the US can't afford it. It is always cheaper to defend by attrition, especially when the numbers favours you.

 

[Stormweaver]

yes, both side has missiles, but US has more expensive target than China, China cannot win by technical ability, they can only win by attrition and the US doesn't like the odds of that: will you risk a billion dollar warship to sink a 500 million one? waste a 100 million anti-missile to shoot down a missile that cost only 50 million?

China's goal is not to attack or invade the US mainland, it is merely to made the cost of US attacking China overwhelmingly expensive that the US can't afford it. It is always cheaper to defend by attrition, especially when the numbers favours you.

But I think that you are also assuming that the US will play the attrition game with China. Over Sea and in the air, the US and the Chinese are numerically even, with the US having a huge technological advantage. The Americans will not attack the mainland with boots on the ground. They will, however, decimate the naval and air forces that venture further out. As long as the Chinese are contained, they cannot do too much damage. Simultaneously, there will be a lot of covert activity to destabilize the politburo's hold and diplomatic pressure to marginalize the Chinese international agenda.

The problem here is that Chinese forces cannot maneuver over the globe. The American forces can. For instance, they can use their Carrier groups to choke off the Malacca Straits or "persuade" African states to sell their resources somewhere else. The Chinese do not have any strategic force projection capabilities, that can stand up to 4-5 Carrier Groups.


Even if a couple of Carrier groups are destroyed, the Americans will bring the full might of NATO, Japan and South Korea to bear. All these combined forces will be around a -Million- strong if need be. And they all -will- have more planes, ships, submarines and missiles than China.


Also, the Americans do not perform a financial cost-benefit calculation while being -actively- engaged in warfare, and rightly so. Warfare is in the hands of soldiers and not accountants. What will happen? Will the battery commander not order an incoming missile shot down just because it is too cost ineffective? Will the naval commander or the US government wait for more "expensive" ships/fleet to do battle?

They did spend a -Trillion- dollars in Iraq...

 

[Swatwolf]

But I think that you are also assuming that the US will play the attrition game with China. Over Sea and in the air, the US and the Chinese are numerically even, with the US having a huge technological advantage. The Americans will not attack the mainland with boots on the ground. They will, however, decimate the naval and air forces that venture further out. As long as the Chinese are contained, they cannot do too much damage. Simultaneously, there will be a lot of covert activity to destabilize the politburo's hold and diplomatic pressure to marginalize the Chinese international agenda.

The problem here is that Chinese forces cannot maneuver over the globe. The American forces can. For instance, they can use their Carrier groups to choke off the Malacca Straits or "persuade" African states to sell their resources somewhere else. The Chinese do not have any strategic force projection capabilities, that can stand up to 4-5 Carrier Groups.


Even if a couple of Carrier groups are destroyed, the Americans will bring the full might of NATO, Japan and South Korea to bear. All these combined forces will be around a -Million- strong if need be. And they all -will- have more planes, ships, submarines and missiles than China.


Also, the Americans do not perform a financial cost-benefit calculation while being -actively- engaged in warfare, and rightly so. Warfare is in the hands of soldiers and not accountants. What will happen? Will the battery commander not order an incoming missile shot down just because it is too cost ineffective? Will the naval commander or the US government wait for more "expensive" ships/fleet to do battle?

They did spend a -Trillion- dollars in Iraq...

I think you misunderstood the concept of war on attrition, let's say the American basses in the region and their communication and reconnaissance satellites are destroyed or disrupted in the region, who will win the war? Is it costlier to resupply your bases 10000 miles away, or resupply and rebuild right in your immediate vicinity? As i mentioned before, they can have 11 aircraft carriers or 10000 planes, it doesn't matter because they is no way they can divert their resource from all over the world to fight in any single war, there's something called geographical restriction. To firmly put it, the country that can rearm faster and rebuild faster, and the country that have the better logistics in any given war wins. There is only so much technological superiority (and in this case not nearly significant enough) could make up. And the scenario of NATO tagging on in a war in this scenario is laughable, to even contemplate doing so they will need a strong foothold in central Asia, and that is not happening anytime soon if ever.

 

[Stormweaver]

I think you misunderstood the concept of war on attrition, let's say the American basses in the region and their communication and reconnaissance satellites are destroyed or disrupted in the region, who will win the war? Is it costlier to resupply your bases 10000 miles away, or resupply and rebuild right in your immediate vicinity? As i mentioned before, they can have 11 aircraft carriers or 10000 planes, it doesn't matter because they is no way they can divert their resource from all over the world to fight in any single war, there's something called geographical restriction. To firmly put it, the country that can rearm faster and rebuild faster, and the country that have the better logistics in any given war wins. There is only so much technological superiority (and in this case not nearly significant enough) could make up. And the scenario of NATO tagging on in a war in this scenario is laughable, to even contemplate doing so they will need a strong foothold in central Asia, and that is not happening anytime soon if ever.

Actually, I agree with you. History has shown that the American public opinion turns anti-war in prolonged military campaigns.

The thing is, the Americans know that. When they respond it will be a Gulf War 1 style campaign with a huge coalition and overwhelming firepower. Even if the Americans suffer a initial Pearl Harbor type defeat, they will still keep coming and their next attack would be with full force of her allies. This attack will be massive and would aim to destroy the PLA as a fighting force and to cripple the Chinese economic infrastructure. Also, NATO doesn't have to wage a ground war, their main objective would be to destroy the PLAN and the PLAAF. The NATO countries still have a respectable navy and air force. Also, IMHO, the Americans have a -huge- technological advantage vis-a-vis any major military power.


Also, historically, American attrition has mainly occurred -during- an occupation of a hostile territory, not during their main "Army vs. Army" campaign. They know that occupying Chinese soil would be horrendously expensive. They would just be content to destroy the Chinese forces in theatre and wrangle heavy diplomatic concessions. The Americans are the best at conventional military campaigns and the Chinese cannot back down from one. The political costs of retreating would be too high for the Politburo [The "saving face" concept].


The Americans have to let the Chinese "wither-on-the-vine". They have to cut their Oil, mineral shipments and their export markets.

The Americans are also the bet in the world at building weapons, and building them fast. Even if the fastest manufacturer of weapons wins this war, it will be the Americans.

Now, with regards to the logistics issue, the Americans have a huge enough fleet to keep their forces supplied indefinitely, especially with no Chinese submarine threat and proximity of the Area of Operations to Australia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, India [to an extent] and the Philippines.

They did overcome these hurdles while fighting in Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. It won't be easy, but it will definitely be done.

Lastly, I am taking this in from the American POV. There is a definite bias here, I admit.

 

[Swatwolf]

Actually, I agree with you. History has shown that the American public opinion turns anti-war in prolonged military campaigns.

The thing is, the Americans know that. When they respond it will be a Gulf War 1 style campaign with a huge coalition and overwhelming firepower. Even if the Americans suffer a initial Pearl Harbor type defeat, they will still keep coming and their next attack would be with full force of her allies. This attack will be massive and would aim to destroy the PLA as a fighting force and to cripple the Chinese economic infrastructure. Also, NATO doesn't have to wage a ground war, their main objective would be to destroy the PLAN and the PLAAF. The NATO countries still have a respectable navy and air force. Also, IMHO, the Americans have a -huge- technological advantage vis-a-vis any major military power.


Also, historically, American attrition has mainly occurred -during- an occupation of a hostile territory, not during their main "Army vs. Army" campaign. They know that occupying Chinese soil would be horrendously expensive. They would just be content to destroy the Chinese forces in theatre and wrangle heavy diplomatic concessions. The Americans are the best at conventional military campaigns and the Chinese cannot back down from one. The political costs of retreating would be too high for the Politburo [The "saving face" concept].


The Americans have to let the Chinese "wither-on-the-vine". They have to cut their Oil, mineral shipments and their export markets.

The Americans are also the bet in the world at building weapons, and building them fast. Even if the fastest manufacturer of weapons wins this war, it will be the Americans.

Now, with regards to the logistics issue, the Americans have a huge enough fleet to keep their forces supplied indefinitely, especially with no Chinese submarine threat and proximity of the Area of Operations to Australia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, India [to an extent] and the Philippines.

They did overcome these hurdles while fighting in Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. It won't be easy, but it will definitely be done.

Lastly, I am taking this in from the American POV. There is a definite bias here, I admit.

What you are talking about is sheer fantasy, i do not have to go through the process again to tell you why, America do not have the capabilities to do what you just said, destroy the PLA and her ability to wage war or counterattack. Bringing up Germany is laughable, the Germans depleted most of their forces over 2 million of their most hardened army were wiped out or captured in Stalingrad, a true strategic failure, and they were defenseless against the Russian offensive, it wasn't America that captured Berlin mind you, learn your history. Funny you brought up the Korean and Vietnam war when it further solidify my point. Today's war will be fought under a different context as well, the technological discrepancy can be countered by asymmetric options that are both cheaper and more efficient.

 

[Foreigntrademan]

PLAAF don't need tankers for Taiwan, but without tanker in SCS(esat sea), PLAAF can not fight with VNAF with lost experience in air ambush tactic

You better say this again, when we reach your doorway,gun in hand.

 

[Foreigntrademan]

You might want to take a hard look at the map and what he said more carefully.

This is a list of known PLAAF bases...

List of People's Liberation Army Air Force airbases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All the Chinese members have to do is find out what aircrafts are stationed at which and do rough estimates on the range of each aircraft. Keep in mind that the mission will not allow a direct flight from a base to Taiwan and once a flight enter Taiwanese airspace, it is also not a direct flight to targets. If the Chinese members find that air refuel is required, they must also find out how long it will take to refuel an aircraft lest we see PLAAF fighters dropping out of the sky for lack of fuel in queue.

Actually, not that wast of careful and detail considering. Actually we do not need any missile to do it. what we need to use is the artillery. Little bit old, but practical. Govenment wont do any harm to Taiwan, except they real do something worng in real action.

 

[Swatwolf]

Also you can't cut off a country who has 20 billion in proven oil supply, especially from a nation that is so dependent of exports and commerce through Asia like the USA, you always need to look at things from a broader perspective, you can't cut off your own economical lifeline just so you can contain it, it don't work that way especially the other party decide it's time to stop funding your debt just so you can use it's money to fund it's military to contain it(get the picture?), you will end up wasting more of your own resources trying to do that anyways than the other country digging out of your containment with countermeasures of their own, that's the situation the USA will be facing with it's reliance on debt, commerce, foreign bases, satellites, etc through Asia, those reliance can as well be used against them by a country like China who has that capability, see the broader picture instead of a plain old chessboard.

 

[Foreigntrademan]

yes, both side has missiles, but US has more expensive target than China, China cannot win by technical ability, they can only win by attrition and the US doesn't like the odds of that: will you risk a billion dollar warship to sink a 500 million one? waste a 100 million anti-missile to shoot down a missile that cost only 50 million?

China's goal is not to attack or invade the US mainland, it is merely to made the cost of US attacking China overwhelmingly expensive that the US can't afford it. It is always cheaper to defend by attrition, especially when the numbers favours you.

This is really a idot statment....Take war as doing business....You are a legend business man..

 

[Stormweaver]

What you are talking about is sheer fantasy, i do not have to go through the process again to tell you why, America do not have the capabilities to do what you just said, destroy the PLA and her ability to wage war or counterattack. Bringing up Germany is laughable, the Germans depleted most of their forces over 2 million of their most hardened army were wiped out or captured in Stalingrad, a true strategic failure, and they were defenseless against the Russian offensive, it wasn't America that captured Berlin mind you, learn your history. Funny you brought up the Korean and Vietnam war when it further solidify my point. Today's war will be fought under a different context as well, the technological discrepancy can be countered by asymmetric options that are both cheaper and more efficient.

Actually, I do know my history.

Why I brought up these examples was not the results of these conflicts, but to highlight the -force projection- aspects.



Your point was:

s i mentioned before, they can have 11 aircraft carriers or 10000 planes, it doesn't matter because they is no way they can divert their resource from all over the world to fight in any single war, there's something called geographical restriction

In each conflict the US could project huge amount of forces, through naval and air supremacy and keep them well supplied. I contend that the US has minimal "geographic restriction".

Bringing up Germany is laughable, the Germans depleted most of their forces over 2 million of their most hardened army were wiped out or captured in Stalingrad, a true strategic failure, and they were defenseless against the Russian offensive, it wasn't America that captured Berlin mind you, learn your history.

You should learn about:

Liberty Ships

Battle of the Atlantic


Again as I said, it will be a war between navies and airforces, not between infantries.

And yes, I do know who captured Berlin, thanks.

 

[Stormweaver]

Also you can't cut off a country who has 20 billion in proven oil supply, especially from a nation that is so dependent of exports and commerce through Asia like the USA, you always need to look at things from a broader perspective, you can't cut off your own economical lifeline just so you can contain it, it don't work that way especially the other party decide it's time to stop funding your debt just so you can use it's money to fund it's military to contain it(get the picture?), you will end up wasting more of your own resources trying to do that anyways than the other country digging out of your containment with countermeasures of their own, that's the situation the USA will be facing with it's reliance on debt, commerce, foreign bases, satellites, etc through Asia, those reliance can as well be used against them by a country like China who has that capability, see the broader picture instead of a plain old chessboard.

The thing is, the US has Mexico and Canada to pickup the slack for cheap labour and natural resources, respectively. It can also redirect operations to cheaper Eastern Europe or to South America. It will hurt, but not for long. Free market forces will take care of that. These countries were manufacturing hubs for US imports before China was.

The growth in China is significantly export driven. The US can afford to get its cheap goods from somewhere else, but China cannot afford to lose the North Americana and European markets.


Moreover, don't overestimate China's debt leverage. If the Chinese start to flood the market with dollars, it will also wipe out the value of their own reserves. Also, debt has a legal payment period. You cannot simple call for payment on a whim. It doesn't work like that. International finance has its own rules.

Finally, reliance on Asian countries is called Alliance building and reliance on satellites is called having a vast technological edge. Reliance on commerce is called Capitalism, something the whole human civilization is standing on it today.

 

[akinkhoo]

But I think that you are also assuming that the US will play the attrition game with China.

I don't assume, I know.

Since the only dispute China has are within the China Seas, US really doesn't have a choice, it can choose to engage China where China want to play or it can choose not to play and just let China do what it wants in "its" China Seas.

Attrition is a major concern even in naval and air war, how many planes do you have on a carrier? how many missile can you carry on destroyer? there is a limited number. and when you consider China has build up a missile force of a 1500 missiles, you have to ask if you have enough planes and missile to hit in the first wave? if not your warship and carrier are going to get sunk, the AEGIS is no as effective as it has ammunition for. and that is what attrition means, China don't mind letting US destroy it's cheap weapons, in exchange for destroying US expensive weapons, does US want to play?

but of course, others have already replied to it.

 

[akinkhoo]

Moreover, don't overestimate China's debt leverage. If the Chinese start to flood the market with dollars, it will also wipe out the value of their own reserves. Also, debt has a legal payment period. You cannot simple call for payment on a whim. It doesn't work like that. International finance has its own rules.

what failure to understand economy:

1. despite being poorer, China can actually make a profit from the lost of 3 trillion USD, because the collapse of the USD will result in the increase in value of RMB, China simply can print RMB to make up for loses and do what US did as it replaces US as the world's reserve currency. 3 trillion in exchange for control of the world economy is a VERY GOOD DEAL.

2. bond can actually be sold at the open market at anytime, this is not a bank loan. but this is really not a big deal either, it not what US is afraid of.

3. what US fears is not their existing debt, but that they need to borrow more. if you don't need to borrow more money, you can just **** the banker. but if you needed the money, you will be begging the banker for more money. That is the real problem US has, beggars can't be choosers.

this leverage is not forever, US will eventually either find it's footing and recover or collapse economically and the world order will change. China has no illusion this is a temporary condition, in fact that is just what China needs... more time and keep the pesky Uncle Sam away until its own economy has matured enough that US would not have the hard power to threaten China anymore. China won't use it leverage, it likes the fact that USN is patrolling the world and keeping oil flowing to China...

 

[amalakas]

The only thing I am going to say about the original article, is that it really does not take 200 Su-27 class fighters to sink a Ticonderoga class cruiser.

those who have been in drills for air to surface missions know how this is done and in what way.

granted the Tics' Radar system is excellent, and the missiles it carries as good as any.. but not unbeatable.

 

[Swatwolf]

what failure to understand economy:

1. despite being poorer, China can actually make a profit from the lost of 3 trillion USD, because the collapse of the USD will result in the increase in value of RMB, China simply can print RMB to make up for loses and do what US did as it replaces US as the world's reserve currency. 3 trillion in exchange for control of the world economy is a VERY GOOD DEAL.

2. bond can actually be sold at the open market at anytime, this is not a bank loan. but this is really not a big deal either, it not what US is afraid of.

3. what US fears is not their existing debt, but that they need to borrow more. if you don't need to borrow more money, you can just **** the banker. but if you needed the money, you will be begging the banker for more money. That is the real problem US has, beggars can't be choosers.

this leverage is not forever, US will eventually either find it's footing and recover or collapse economically and the world order will change. China has no illusion this is a temporary condition, in fact that is just what China needs... more time and keep the pesky Uncle Sam away until its own economy has matured enough that US would not have the hard power to threaten China anymore. China won't use it leverage, it likes the fact that USN is patrolling the world and keeping oil flowing to China...

Actually that is not how the currency system work, trust me currency are worthless altogether in times of a war of this scale, that goes for the RMB, what matters is productivity, as Mr. Putin says USA is leeching off the global economy through their manipulation of the dollar and exporting of inflation to other countries, with mechanism like quantitative easing, ultimately what USA have in advantage to other countries is liquidity, in that more countries in the world hold dollar than anything else which makes them all susceptible to whatever the Americans decide to increase liquidity by printing more money, for that reason alone the RMB have a long long way in replacing the dollar and it certainly won't happen in times of war and will be meaningless in times of war anyways. It's about productivity not worthless paper then, because the global trade and economical output will be turned upside down, in fact the dollar might even gain strength momentarily as an investment of last resort, but again it wouldn't really matter in a third world world war.