Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Strategerist; AntiGuv; nuconvert
Despite the frantic hype the PRC Navy and Air Force simply aren't that great. No ship is absolutely invulnerable, and yes, a Carrier is sinkable, but we've got plenty of those. And destroying one would likely end up with the PRC losing all of their naval and air power-projecting capability in the process. The PRC is likely to be completely helpless at ASW warfare, and, thus, incapable of projecting power anywhere overseas.

The assumption you make is that the chinese, if they ever engaged in warfare against the US, would meet us mano-a-mano. It is common knowledge to all that facing the US in open warfare, where all the advantages inherent in the American style of warfare (3rd generation maneuver) come into play is basically a death trap. There is no force on earth that is as adept at destroying massed formations of men/aircraft/naval resources like the US is.

Thus, if the Chinese send their ships against ours in blue water (deep open ocean) the Chinese will lose. If they send their J-11s and J-10s against our F-15s and F-22s, they will lose. If they send their T-72s against our Abrams ....you get the picture.

The Chinese are not dumb enough to follow Saddam's example of hoping to match the US blow for blow. Not even the Russians could hope to last in an open conventional war against us.

What the Chinese will do is follow the formula that has consistently defeated super-power/regional-power level nations. 4th generation decentralized warfare (whcih defeated the US in Lebanon and Vietnam, Russia in Afghanistan and Chechnya, the French in Algeria etc etc).

And to this the Chinese will meld a new animal. A high tect core that they observed wroking well against NATO in Bosnia (when NATO jets were bombing microwave ovens and reporting that as 'hundreds' of tank kills when in effect they destroyed only a handfull). That is not high-tech per se, but the Chinese will cloak it in a high tech glove eg using parasitic microsatellites to knowck out our eyes in space.

Thus do not expect Sovremmny destroyers going against the Nimitz! That would be suicide (for the Chinese). Expect all sorts of tricks though.

China would be ridiculously asinine to ever try to meet the US tank for tank. The US military is just too well-versed at handling such threats. But it falls apart when it meets amorphous challenges that adapt on the fly and attack from 'unfair' angles.

Eg. container ships filled with explosives that cause all shipping lanes to the US to be closed, chocking the American economy.

The Chinese hope to someday have a military that is American-like, but they know victory does not lie in arm-wrestling Uncle Sam in an open table. No nation (and i mean NONE) can face the US in open traditional conventional warfare and win. They would be destroyed in days/weeks. However change your stratagems and our great strengths become pliable weaknesses.

And the Chinese have been studying our military paradigm for decades now. And they know very well that they are the under dog (and are thus not overly confident). Even when China (note when ...not if but when) becomes a super-power they will still think as if they are fighting as under-dogs, because they will be. We (the US) need to see them as a viable and potent threat.

If we don't what will happen will be akin to the events that occured before Pearl Harbor. Where it was a common joke that the Japanese couldn't 'fly straight because their eyes were slanted.'

Pearl Harbor proved they could fly straight enough.

260 posted on 12/02/2004 11:52:00 AM PST by spetznaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: spetznaz; Strategerist; AntiGuv; nuconvert

"Despite the frantic hype the PRC Navy and Air Force simply aren't that great. No ship is absolutely invulnerable, and yes, a Carrier is sinkable, but we've got plenty of those."
***It would really only take the loss of one or 2 of these and we're down $1trillion or so, plus the loss of about 10k lives, and the U.S. is likely to lose stomach for more fighting.


"And destroying one would likely end up with the PRC losing all of their naval and air power-projecting capability in the process."
***This neglects the already mentioned strategy of asymmetrical warfare. An attack would be in the form of a swarm of antiship missiles, they wouldn't care if 90% of them get shot down. The remaining 10% could get through and sink carriers (with planes & men aboard) at the loss of a few dozen pilots and planes. After that, the power-projecting capability rests with the army, which engages in its own form of swarm tactics (previously utilized in Korea), with the willingness to accept tens of millions of casualties.


The PRC is likely to be completely helpless at ASW warfare, and, thus, incapable of projecting power anywhere overseas.
***China doesn't necessarily want to project power overseas other than across the Taiwan Straits, which are well within their currently tested missile capabilities.

The assumption you make is that the chinese, if they ever engaged in warfare against the US, would meet us mano-a-mano. It is common knowledge to all that facing the US in open warfare, where all the advantages inherent in the American style of warfare (3rd generation maneuver) come into play is basically a death trap.
***The maneuver card is trumped by the tight quarters presented on such a small island as Taiwan. And the chinese could wipe out the american air advantage with hundreds of thousands of cheap, light anti-aircraft missiles such as are flooding the market after the soviets were knocked out of Afghanistan. They would aim for the same approach to antitank weapons. An army marching in force with hundreds of thousands of swarming, cheap anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons would be formidable enough to instill heavy casualties in American lines. That's all they would be aiming for, they don't have to aim to win the battle. It's kind of like the Vietnamese, who said that our efforts at winning every battle were "irrelevant".

There is no force on earth that is as adept at destroying massed formations of men/aircraft/naval resources like the US is.
***Agreed, but there is also no populace that expects more from their armed forces than the American press.

If they send their J-11s and J-10s against our F-15s and F-22s, they will lose. If they send their T-72s against our Abrams ....you get the picture.
***If the Chinese send hundreds of J10s and thousands of antiship & antiaircraft missiles, how many do you think will be shot down? This won't be J10 vs F15, it will be J10 + 30 antiaircraft + 40 antiship missiles vs F15 & 1 ship.



What the Chinese will do is follow the formula that has consistently defeated super-power/regional-power level nations. 4th generation decentralized warfare (whcih defeated the US in Lebanon and Vietnam, Russia in Afghanistan and Chechnya, the French in Algeria etc etc).
***These 2 statements are contradictory with each other: "The Chinese are not dumb enough to follow Saddam's example of hoping to match the US blow for blow."

Not even the Russians could hope to last in an open conventional war against us.
***The chinese will be going for an open UNconventional war.


261 posted on 12/04/2004 7:04:52 AM PST by Kevin OMalley (Kevin O'Malley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies ]

To: spetznaz
Asymmetrical warfare. It is too bad that US politicians no longer have the guts to play the ChiComs at their own game. In the Cold War for example, Afganistan was payback to Russia for what happened in Vietnam.

As insane as it may sound, it should be the US sending container ships loaded with explosives to Chinese ports, supporting proxy-wars against China (Russia and India would come in handy for this), backing insurgencies, etc.

297 posted on 12/21/2004 9:44:09 AM PST by Paul_Denton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson