US military plan against China outlined in think-tank report

[SeaGypsy]

Way too speculative, I am willing to bet any amount it doesn't before at least 2020.

[bochen280]

Way too speculative, I am willing to bet any amount it doesn't before at least 2020.

There has never been a nation that had to face the prospects of nuclear retaliation. Japan couldn't fight back in 1945 because it didn't have nukes. That doesn't count. I'm saying if today US surprise first strike attacks China via nukes and wipe out CCP and all major Chinese cities, what is to guarantee China will actually retaliate? And if they don't retaliate (for whatever reason(s)) or if such retaliation was only minimally effective, then why would the US not attack? Think about it. Population is the problem. Peak oil is a population problem. It IS a zero sum game. The nukes are already there, those are sunken costs whether or not they will ever be used, and this is the most quickly and effective "bang for buck" and the ONLY way US could totally defeat China militaristically and hence economically in short order... Why do you think US is building missile defense in earnest now and trying to persuade Russia to disarm? If China doesn't built a defensive 'deadhand' tied to some sort of 'doomsday machine' or increase its SLBM by orders of magnitude then it is practically inviting US to attack... I mean after Syria and Iran ... China will be next if it doesn't watch out.

[SeaGypsy]

Because this is not a conspiracy nut site. We usually try to base our arguments on logic. It would be much easier for the USA to blockade shipping of oil to Chindia on some political pretence than to justify nuking a few of their cities. Remeber the USA which cares about it's public image? Japan was in the midst of taking over SE Asia/ Oceania by brute force where necessary. China is not doing anything like that. There is not and will not be, any time soon any justification for nuking China or anyone else.

[bochen280]

Because this is not a conspiracy nut site. We usually try to base our arguments on logic. It would be much easier for the USA to blockade shipping of oil to Chindia on some political pretence than to justify nuking a few of their cities. Remeber the USA which cares about it's public image? Japan was in the midst of taking over SE Asia/ Oceania by brute force where necessary. China is not doing anything like that. There is not and will not be, any time soon any justification for nuking China or anyone else.

Public image was on the upslide of Olduvai Gorge... Push comes to shove, I don't conventional wisdom and sheeple herd mentality is going to be an accurate predictor of the things to come. "Rights", "justification" only exists in the context of a normal society, there is nothing normal about realities of what mankind is facing.

[Pops]

China, Russia, India and maybe EU have GPS.

Old school ICBMs used ground based nav, like LORAN I suppose, I'm sure they use GPS now, they aren't just built and set on a shelf, LOL. In fact I read that it is illegal to export GPS receivers that operate above a certain altitude and speed specifically so they can't be used in missiles.

As to the draft, they were giving gang bangers sign-up and re-up bonuses until recently. 2 million served in Iraq/Afgan - over 10 years – but China wouldn't be Iraq. In WWII there were 16 million in the service.

China and the US are joined at the hip for the moment, heck they are buying up the tar sands.

[Pops]

Tell me again why the US would attack China?

[evilgenius]

I don't think for a second that the US is planning on attacking China. I don't think they want to attack Russia either. The US is definitely pushing against Russian influence in the Middle East, though. The problem with what is going on in the Middle East is that the US could very easily be pulled into a war with Russia. If so, the missile defense they would like doesn't exist yet. The Russians might allow themselves to lose a limited land/sea engagement, but that is wishful thinking.

After Syria, and maybe Lebanon, fall to this 'Arab Spring' then the situation will become very stark. It will either resolve itself by losing energy in various smaller conflicts, or it will become an engagement with Iran, or perhaps a proxy engagement with Iran via a renewed US occupation of Iraq intended to quell a general Shia uprising. China fits into this situation really in the sense that they need resources. Their best scenario for growing and most peacefully acquiring what they need is under the US umbrella. They can't just end their general experiment with capitalism. Seen in this light a strong relationship with China is of great benefit to the US right now. It could be what keeps the Russians from going too far in reaction to the losses they can very well see occurring. Now is not a good time to send mixed signals about how close the US/China relationship is. Some limited sabre rattling is ok, but not that which is on the level that makes the Chinese sit at a table with the Russians and mutually complain about what a raw deal the US is giving them.

[bochen280]

I don't think for a second that the US is planning on attacking China. I don't think they want to attack Russia either. The US is definitely pushing against Russian influence in the Middle East, though. The problem with what is going on in the Middle East is that the US could very easily be pulled into a war with Russia. If so, the missile defense they would like doesn't exist yet. The Russians might allow themselves to lose a limited land/sea engagement, but that is wishful thinking.

After Syria, and maybe Lebanon, fall to this 'Arab Spring' then the situation will become very stark. It will either resolve itself by losing energy in various smaller conflicts, or it will become an engagement with Iran, or perhaps a proxy engagement with Iran via a renewed US occupation of Iraq intended to quell a general Shia uprising. China fits into this situation really in the sense that they need resources. Their best scenario for growing and most peacefully acquiring what they need is under the US umbrella. They can't just end their general experiment with capitalism. Seen in this light a strong relationship with China is of great benefit to the US right now. It could be what keeps the Russians from going too far in reaction to the losses they can very well see occurring. Now is not a good time to send mixed signals about how close the US/China relationship is. Some limited sabre rattling is ok, but not that which is on the level that makes the Chinese sit at a table with the Russians and mutually complain about what a raw deal the US is giving them.

What makes you think it is not US and Russia secretly teaming up against China?

[sparky]

.
It is in the nature of the military to make plans or "contingencies"
First it's a good mental training for staff ,
it allow for a slow considerate approach to a given hypothetical situation
get the maps , get the facts ,get the political set up , distillate the lot ,
gnaw on the possible objectives and tasks ,determine the ways and means .
All pretty academic really .
there probably is a plan for going to war against Paraguay

on any U.S. versus China nastiness
no need to bomb anyone , with nukes or otherwise
the U.S. navy as of August 2012 is in supreme control of the world sea-lanes
China imports and exports can be choked at the second islands chain
As the Republic of China People Navy is well aware
it leave only four accesses

there is the Russian backdoor , of limited bandwidth
the Burmese side exit , dito
the Pakistanese high road ,any trucks using it would consume their own load worth of fuel
and of course some smuggling via Korea and Vietnam

It is interesting to note the big effort of the U.S. to become friendly with Burma and Vietnam
while non breaking relations with those double faced , lying mongrels in power in Pakistan

[bochen280]

.
It is in the nature of the military to make plans or "contingencies"
First it's a good mental training for staff ,
it allow for a slow considerate approach to a given hypothetical situation
get the maps , get the facts ,get the political set up , distillate the lot ,
gnaw on the possible objectives and tasks ,determine the ways and means .
All pretty academic really .
there probably is a plan for going to war against Paraguay

on any U.S. versus China nastiness
no need to bomb anyone , with nukes or otherwise
the U.S. navy as of August 2012 is in supreme control of the world sea-lanes
China imports and exports can be choked at the second islands chain
As the Republic of China People Navy is well aware
it leave only four accesses

there is the Russian backdoor , of limited bandwidth
the Burmese side exit , dito
the Pakistanese high road ,any trucks using it would consume their own load worth of fuel
and of course some smuggling via Korea and Vietnam

It is interesting to note the big effort of the U.S. to become friendly with Burma and Vietnam
while non breaking relations with those double faced , lying mongrels in power in Pakistan

But that is why China is building stealth bomber/fighter J-20, a fleet of aircraft carriers, own global GPS, stealth busting radar, a blue water navy, and anti-ship missiles. In the future, US won't be able to easily or realistic deny China's import/export transportation ability... but there is always the "first strike nuke" option... and that is my point... American cannot afford to fight conventional war with China... but US doesn't NEED to if nukes will do the tricks.

[rangerone314]

There have been others who thought that international trade would make war obsolete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Angell#The_Great_Illusion

The thesis of the book was that the integration of the economies of European countries had grown to such a degree that war between them would be entirely futile, making militarism obsolete.

Published in 1909 and also in 1913, a year before World War I broke out.

History never repeats itself but it does rhyme.

[rangerone314]

But that is why China is building stealth bomber/fighter J-20, a fleet of aircraft carriers, own global GPS, stealth busting radar, a blue water navy, and anti-ship missiles. In the future, US won't be able to easily or realistic deny China's import/export transportation ability... but there is always the "first strike nuke" option... and that is my point... American cannot afford to fight conventional war with China... but US doesn't NEED to if nukes will do the tricks.

Read "One Second After" by William R. Forstchen.

I imagine something like that would mysteriously happen to the US if the US went monkeysh*t on China using a first strike nuclear attack. Good luck with cars, trucks, refrigeration, power generation, fuel deliveries, food deliveries to grocery stores (which people would walk to only to find them empty).

[bochen280]

But that is why China is building stealth bomber/fighter J-20, a fleet of aircraft carriers, own global GPS, stealth busting radar, a blue water navy, and anti-ship missiles. In the future, US won't be able to easily or realistic deny China's import/export transportation ability... but there is always the "first strike nuke" option... and that is my point... American cannot afford to fight conventional war with China... but US doesn't NEED to if nukes will do the tricks.

Read "One Second After" by William R. Forstchen.

I imagine something like that would mysteriously happen to the US if the US went monkeysh*t on China using a first strike nuclear attack. Good luck with cars, trucks, refrigeration, power generation, fuel deliveries, food deliveries to grocery stores (which people would walk to only to find them empty).

EMP isn't as scary as the book makes it out to be. The book is an interesting read but still doesn't reflect reality. Stuff would come back in a few days. Hey just a while ago didn't India's entire electric grid go down? I don't see them going back to the stone age. [besides, think logically for a moment here, if China could succeed in doing a nationwide EMP attack on US in a post-strike retaliation, why would they settle for just an ephemeral EMP when they might as well go for a more permanent thermonuclear ?] And you don't think IF the US was to do that kind of sneaky first-strike attack on another so-called "superpower" they would have covered all their bases and have put in contingency plans for all possible retaliation methods? If the CCP was wiped out, who in China is going to retaliate in the first place? The Russians have/had deadhand and automated doomsday weapons, but the only thing the Chinese have is a stringent "No First Use" policy.... hardly a deterrent. From a psychological standpoint, maybe America would bet that it can nuke China and China would NOT retaliate? This is a very real possibility. If China was really nuked and leadership decapitated in a first-strike, I don't think China would retaliate even if it was still capable of doing so. (Given the soft, peaceful, pushover, and forgiving nature of the Chinese) Hence, there is no deterrence and when push comes to shove that makes the nuclear option much more attractive to the US.

[vtsnowedin]

I don't see a preemptive nuclear strike by the US against anyone as even a remote possibility. Especially China. How would the politician's explain to the voters that they destroyed the source of all the stuff they buy at Walmart and the like?
What I do see is a jockeying for position in the oil producing regions of the world. China is investing in Africa and has been stated above in the Canadian tar sands. The danger will come when a supertanker pulls up to the loading point at KSA and the Saudi es have to say not today or tomorrow as a lot of wells have just water leveled out of production. A world wide panic will set in and countries that have oil will shut off exports. The Chinese will figure that the oilfields they have invested in are theirs and will move troops to keep the oil flowing back to China, They will come nose to nose with our troops bent on keeping the oil flowing our way. This will be a disaster and an expensive one at that as both sides will spend a lot of the remaining oil fighting over the dribbles that remain and destroy both economies. Famine will follow.

[EnergyUnlimited]

...but the only thing the Chinese have is a stringent "No First Use" policy.... hardly a deterrent. From a psychological standpoint, maybe America would bet that it can nuke China and China would NOT retaliate? This is a very real possibility. If China was really nuked and leadership decapitated in a first-strike, I don't think China would retaliate even if it was still capable of doing so. (Given the soft, peaceful, pushover, and forgiving nature of the Chinese) Hence, there is no deterrence and when push comes to shove that makes the nuclear option much more attractive to the US.

It is really crap military planning to assume that your adversary is a *cretin*.
Never works well and it ensures that you lose.

So it is best to assume that Chinese *no first use* policy is just a means to fool Americans, who are often quite frankly stupid or at least you are.

Ideas that Chinese would not retaliate if they have opportunity to do so are plain insane.
It is also plain insane to assume that Chinese nuclear assets are as limited as claimed by Being - some extremely nasty surprise can easy come out of that.

[bochen280]

...but the only thing the Chinese have is a stringent "No First Use" policy.... hardly a deterrent. From a psychological standpoint, maybe America would bet that it can nuke China and China would NOT retaliate? This is a very real possibility. If China was really nuked and leadership decapitated in a first-strike, I don't think China would retaliate even if it was still capable of doing so. (Given the soft, peaceful, pushover, and forgiving nature of the Chinese) Hence, there is no deterrence and when push comes to shove that makes the nuclear option much more attractive to the US.

It is really crap military planning to assume that your adversary is a *cretin*.
Never works well and it ensures that you lose.

So it is best to assume that Chinese *no first use* policy is just a means to fool Americans, who are often quite frankly stupid or at least you are.

Ideas that Chinese would not retaliate if they have opportunity to do so are plain insane.
It is also plain insane to assume that Chinese nuclear assets are as limited as claimed by Being - some extremely nasty surprise can easy come out of that.

Was that a typo? You meant to say Beijing, right? What is the point of having more capable nuclear deterrence capabilities if you HIDE IT? The whole point of deterrence is to make it well known to your opponent that you have a credible one. In any case, it is the American perception of the credibility of China's nuclear deterrence that factors in the relative attractiveness of a first-strike option. And in these cases, perception often have a very large influence on reality and the actions that stem from that. If China had a more credible deterrence there would be no point in hiding it. If China foolishly believes that purposeful ambiguity can serve the same as a projection of a more powerful deterrence, well that might not work out too well for them.

[bochen280]

I don't see a preemptive nuclear strike by the US against anyone as even a remote possibility. Especially China. How would the politician's explain to the voters that they destroyed the source of all the stuff they buy at Walmart and the like?

It would likely be martial law at this point. The internet kill switch would probably be thrown and media cutoff... and as for the 'cheap stuff', indentured servitude camps will have plenty of people working for free to provide the cheap labor.

What I do see is a jockeying for position in the oil producing regions of the world. China is investing in Africa and has been stated above in the Canadian tar sands. The danger will come when a supertanker pulls up to the loading point at KSA and the Saudi es have to say not today or tomorrow as a lot of wells have just water leveled out of production. A world wide panic will set in and countries that have oil will shut off exports. The Chinese will figure that the oilfields they have invested in are theirs and will move troops to keep the oil flowing back to China, They will come nose to nose with our troops bent on keeping the oil flowing our way. This will be a disaster and an expensive one at that as both sides will spend a lot of the remaining oil fighting over the dribbles that remain and destroy both economies. Famine will follow.

Exactly, both sides would quickly reach point of diminishing returns as EROEI drops even further... each side fighting over last remaining bits of oil will make it even worse than if they just negotiate on a deal and shared the zero sum pie...

So it really comes down to only two scenarios:

1) US negotiates their non-negotiable way of life with the Chinese to a level that the Chinese find fair and acceptable... and a level the US can tolerate...
OR
2) US take China out of the equation altogether....

The first option will likely never be tenable because the Chinese acceptable standard of living and US acceptable compromised standard of living mutually excludes each other... Not only is it zero-sum, the pie is ever shrinking.... The latter option is of course the nuclear first-strike option. The latter option is more attractive IF US believes China to only possess minimally effective deterrence/retaliation capabilities.... and right now, as it stands, that is the case.

[EnergyUnlimited]

If China had a more credible deterrence there would be no point in hiding it.

False.
Lets say to produce first strike capability against US without causing unnecessary arms race.

If China foolishly believes that purposeful ambiguity can serve the same as a projection of a more powerful deterrence, well that might not work out too well for them.

But if you assume it foolishly, you might lose.

[bochen280]

If China had a more credible deterrence there would be no point in hiding it.

False.
Lets say to produce first strike capability against US without causing unnecessary arms race.

I think you meant second-strike capability. China has no first-strike capability against anyone of the nuclear nations. And even if they did, it is against their long stated policy to strike first. Unlike the US and Russia, China has vowed to never even launch-on-warning and will only launch after confirmed attack has already taken place. This position puts China at a disadvantage and gives the first-strike nation a premium.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I think you meant second-strike capability. China has no first-strike capability against anyone.

So it is quite reasonable to expect that they are working on it... and it is entirely unknown, how advanced is such a work...

You see, I bet that recent US adventures here and there are making countries like Russia or China quite determined to acquire something what might prove in confrontation to be a first (and final...) strike capability against US.
It would obviously rely on massive atomic first strikes, perhaps preceded by EMP attacks.
But you are unlikely to hear official statements about that.

US would probably retaliate to a significant degree in any case but for China that could be an acceptable loss allowing to alleviate local population problems.

And even if they did, it is against their long stated policy to strike first.

Sometimes cigar is just a cigar... but sometimes it is not...
Do not confuse public projections with actual policy.