Jump to content


Photo

Lightening The Marine Corps


  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

#101 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,222 posts

Posted 08 April 2020 - 0343 AM

It would not be the very first nation that is crazy to go to war with its neighbours. Nazi Germany had little realistic hope of winning WW2, but that didnt stop it embarking on it. Ditto Kaisers Germany. Napoleon, the Carthaginians, the history books are full of them.

 

Can I imagine circumstances in which it would happen? Well I dont think China WANTS a war. But it may feel constrained in the future. It clearly feels it from Trumps own policies. We cant tell what they would feel threatened by, but a block on their goods by America, Japanese rearmament, South Korean reintegration, Taiwanese declared independence, a war in Iran or its resource sites attacked by terrorists in Africa, all of these in singular or in combination might be enough to convince China to get off its butt and exercise its will. Which in some circumstances might be to our advantage, but not necessarily so.

 

Im reminded of something I read in a book on Kissinger, about when he met Mao. Kissinger made a comment, and Mao replied something about being a Monk, that defied any understanding even when the translation was made. It took 25 years for an academic in the US to accurately figure out what Mao was actually saying and translate it. The basic point im making is, China is foreign. Far more than any other asian nation (other than perhaps North Korea), and whilst in many respects they have westernized, we probably should not mistake that as thinking their mindset and world outlook is identical to ours. It doesnt make them wrong, or evil, or crazy, though like our leaders some of them may be one or all of those. It  just means that what looks reasonable to us, may look wholly unreasonable to them, and vice versa.

Alignment towards China or the US is not guaranteed to be aligned with the US. That's a danger that many westerners assume that can't happen. And they just think in terms of "to war or to not to war"

 

The alignment is fluid. Alignment is not only determined by China's territorial claims. Economics plays a role too. China is the largest trade partner for most countries in the region. If surrounding countries don't act together, then China can economically target individual countries. This argument was made about the UK being part of the EU, so as to not be out standing alone when dealing with bigger countries like Russia, China, and the US.

 

Balance of military power is a factor too. Everyone gets in the habit of comparing just the US and China. What if the US doesn't have the political will? Then the question is a comparison of China's military to the Philippines, or Vietnam's, or Thailand, or Indonesia.. its not even a contest. Furthermore, people bring up the supply line to the ME, but at the same time in other discussions, US iffy commitment in the ME happens a lot. But when the China question comes up, the ME supply route point is made as if its an absolute given.

 

Here's the basic fluid transition of alignment in my general view for the past 10 years. Japan comes in at 2020 to reflect defense law changes.

 

China      (US      Japan)

 

Vietnam------------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Laos----------------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Cambodia---------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Philippines--------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Thailand-----------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Myanmar----------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Singapore---------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Malaysia----------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Indonesia---------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Brunei-------------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Taiwan------------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Australia----------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

South Korea-----2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

--------------------------------------------------------------------Japan->> 2035

 

0000 heavily China aligned

0000 lightly China aligned

0000 middle of US and China alignment

0000 lightly US aligned

0000 heavily US aligned

0000 heavily US and Japan aligned but more so for US

0000 heavily US and Japan aligned

0000 US and Japan aligned, a little China

0000 middle of Japan and China, little US

0000 midway between US, China, and Japan

 

Whose to say that the 2035 situation couldn't happen? For Aisa, in relative size, China today is already what Germany was when it had Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, and France. China has enough size leverage already to not have to initiate a war to establish entire hegemony throughout the whole region if the US and Japan play their hand poorly.


Edited by JasonJ, 08 April 2020 - 0401 AM.

  • 0

#102 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,815 posts

Posted 08 April 2020 - 0605 AM

 

JasonJ,

Pack to your post #69, to me, the U.S. has two roads to take care of; domestic interstate and foreign two lane, federal highway.

We've been over domestic, so let me go to the two lane problem which is maintained by diplomacy and the military. IMO, the foreign problems facing the U.S. are:

1. Illegal  immigration -- due to expanding liberalism via today's Democratic Party.

2. Islam's lack of responsibility to deal with its terrorists. 

3. Mid-East oil -- where I understand China gets an increasing amount of its oil.

4. China -- let me make an attempt to look at things from China's perspective. Again, I pay little attention to foreign affairs so take it for what's worth. China's foreign relation main  problem is its own government. It manages to antagonize everyone, the U.S. economically and its neighbors with its foreign ambitions. From its viewpoint; it faces a tougher U.S. in Trump,on land it faces two relatively considerable economic and military countries in Russia and India. Seaward it has its SLOC "controlled" by Malaysia and Indonesia. .It has the military weak -- but getting stronger -- economic titan in Japan. I don't know enough to make a good comment on China's relations with Malay, Indonesia, Philippines, or Australia but I would suspect these said countries take a suspicious look at China's intentions. 

The U.S. has more influence over China's major oil suppliers in the Mid East than they do. An alarming concern to them? From my limited understanding, I am under the impression that China is rather heavy-handed in dealing with 3rd World countries. Since China has a Communist government it cannot offer a moral high ground support in its foreign relations. So it appears China's ability to act on the world stage is limited. 

Which brings us back to the thread's topic of the reorganization of the U.S.M.C. How does China see this emphasis against it? What can they do about it? How does the U.S. diplomatically assist and be assisted by the seaward countries facing China with this U.S.M.C. "rethinking?" This is why I place China fourth on the list of two lane highway issues facing the U.S. 

Finally, I do thank you for your posts on Asia. New territory for me.

You know what Rick, fuck it, there's only so much time worth investing into trying to fill ignorance that is combined with lack of desire to investigate on one's own self. Maybe it's just a game to keep forums active or just being resistant in knowing.

 

Look through these posts and the surrounding posts.

 

March 2015 Spratly Islands
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1153660
August 2015
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1183204
September
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1191419
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1194489


Oil gas reserves in SCS
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1195471

AIIB Philippines June 2015
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1175986

PRC layer arrestments 2015
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1178378

Philippines initiates UN tribunal on SCS July 2015
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1179069
Laos, Cambodia, and Brunei side with China April 2016
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1239330
Singapore calls China out for disrupting ASEAN
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1240099
South Africa commentator blaming US for SCS tensions
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1244427
G7 at Ise criticize China for SCS
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1245508
PRC propaganda video backing its claim in SCS in June 2016 and July
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1250081
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1253002
"China being bullied with SCS" July 6th 2016
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1252836

First signs of domestic carrier being built October 2015
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1195999

Land route gas and oil to China
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1201070

First FONOPs since start of PRC island making October 2015
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1201754
8-11 times a quarter announcement
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1203253
3rd FONOPs planned as of April 2016
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1235512
But canncelled the third one
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1239894
FONOPS May 2016 at Fiery Cross Reef, shortly after the party.

First PRC-Thai air force joint-training in November 2015
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1205141

Exports to China/Imports from China in 2014
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1211832

China trade in Africa for 2014
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1213651

Social Credit System development starting in 2015
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1213848

HK publisher disappaering, 5 th in a series Jan 2016
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1217078
Hunt for dissedents goes into Thailand
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1226527

Aircraft landing for first time on Fiery Cross Reef in January 2016
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1217863
Military aircraft landed in April 2016
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1238793
Party on Fiery Cross Reef May 2016

Couteron Reef furthest south Feb 2016
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1227676

China using history card in sub deal with Australia Feb 2016
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1227992

New naval base talk at Palawan for US, Japan, and Vietnam Feb 2016
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1228365

Corithian
Philippines budget makeup
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1228365
Beijing plans to setup up "international maritime judicial center" for SCS
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1231831

Heilongjiang coal miner strike March 2016
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1232414

Japan scrambles for FY2015, tied up north of SCS
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1239036

US carrier group in SCS May 2016
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1244416
Two carriers in SCS in June 2016 as part of drum up to UN tribunal answer
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1249131

Foreign Minister Wang in Canada press conference
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1247250

PLAN intellligence ship entered Japanese territorial waters June 2016, first time since 2004
http://www.tank-net....39564&p=1248399

 

And those links are all from just one thread. Many other threads would need sifting through as well so as to compile the sources for necessary points to fill up your cups of ignorance and spoon feed them into points. Pardon my french. If your view should ever become the new US foreign policy about China, then go back home, and stay there, on your side of the pond.

 

Don't get too upset, like many Americans, foreign affairs is not that important compared to domestic ones. Especially now!  If one looks at the geography and history of the U.S. you can see why. Second, personally I work basically a full-time job as an ophthalmic photographer and I own several rental properties which will enable me to retire in not a rich, but a decent retirement in about 10 years at 70 years young. Finally I serve on two church committees and volunteer for local Conservative causes locally, especially property and tax issues.  So don't take this personally, but foreign affairs is a time luxury that I mostly do without and without harm being done to me. Are foreign relations/military history Interesting -- sometimes, crucial -- nope!

Tank Net is basically a site that would be geared to foreign affairs no matter what country the poster is from. I have learned from the posters on this Grate Site over the years including yours. I will read the links you provided, but for me, a synopsis from intelligent individuals such as yourself does suffice. 


Edited by Rick, 08 April 2020 - 0639 AM.

  • 0

#103 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,815 posts

Posted 08 April 2020 - 0700 AM

 

It would not be the very first nation that is crazy to go to war with its neighbours. Nazi Germany had little realistic hope of winning WW2, but that didnt stop it embarking on it. Ditto Kaisers Germany. Napoleon, the Carthaginians, the history books are full of them.

 

Can I imagine circumstances in which it would happen? Well I dont think China WANTS a war. But it may feel constrained in the future. It clearly feels it from Trumps own policies. We cant tell what they would feel threatened by, but a block on their goods by America, Japanese rearmament, South Korean reintegration, Taiwanese declared independence, a war in Iran or its resource sites attacked by terrorists in Africa, all of these in singular or in combination might be enough to convince China to get off its butt and exercise its will. Which in some circumstances might be to our advantage, but not necessarily so.

 

Im reminded of something I read in a book on Kissinger, about when he met Mao. Kissinger made a comment, and Mao replied something about being a Monk, that defied any understanding even when the translation was made. It took 25 years for an academic in the US to accurately figure out what Mao was actually saying and translate it. The basic point im making is, China is foreign. Far more than any other asian nation (other than perhaps North Korea), and whilst in many respects they have westernized, we probably should not mistake that as thinking their mindset and world outlook is identical to ours. It doesnt make them wrong, or evil, or crazy, though like our leaders some of them may be one or all of those. It  just means that what looks reasonable to us, may look wholly unreasonable to them, and vice versa.

Alignment towards China or the US is not guaranteed to be aligned with the US. That's a danger that many westerners assume that can't happen. And they just think in terms of "to war or to not to war"

 

The alignment is fluid. Alignment is not only determined by China's territorial claims. Economics plays a role too. China is the largest trade partner for most countries in the region. If surrounding countries don't act together, then China can economically target individual countries. This argument was made about the UK being part of the EU, so as to not be out standing alone when dealing with bigger countries like Russia, China, and the US.

 

Balance of military power is a factor too. Everyone gets in the habit of comparing just the US and China. What if the US doesn't have the political will? Then the question is a comparison of China's military to the Philippines, or Vietnam's, or Thailand, or Indonesia.. its not even a contest. Furthermore, people bring up the supply line to the ME, but at the same time in other discussions, US iffy commitment in the ME happens a lot. But when the China question comes up, the ME supply route point is made as if its an absolute given.

 

Here's the basic fluid transition of alignment in my general view for the past 10 years. Japan comes in at 2020 to reflect defense law changes.

 

China      (US      Japan)

 

Vietnam------------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Laos----------------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Cambodia---------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Philippines--------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Thailand-----------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Myanmar----------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Singapore---------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Malaysia----------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Indonesia---------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Brunei-------------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Taiwan------------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

Australia----------2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

South Korea-----2010-----------2015-----------2020 ------->>>> 2035

--------------------------------------------------------------------Japan->> 2035

 

0000 heavily China aligned

0000 lightly China aligned

0000 middle of US and China alignment

0000 lightly US aligned

0000 heavily US aligned

0000 heavily US and Japan aligned but more so for US

0000 heavily US and Japan aligned

0000 US and Japan aligned, a little China

0000 middle of Japan and China, little US

0000 midway between US, China, and Japan

 

Whose to say that the 2035 situation couldn't happen? For Aisa, in relative size, China today is already what Germany was when it had Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, and France. China has enough size leverage already to not have to initiate a war to establish entire hegemony throughout the whole region if the US and Japan play their hand poorly.

 

Jason, the best analogy I can think of is the one pertaining to U.S. sports. Diplomatically, were in the pre-season. We're pretty sure we know what our team and our opponents can do before hand, but you can never really know until the end of the season, but that's why the game is played, to see who wins. 

Now everyone on this Grate Sight and the rest of the world knows that pre-season foreign relations canunfortunately, become a regular season of war, and in the U.S. almost all of us will be spectators in this. But in the "game" of domestic events, all Americans are players or are affected by the outcome of the "game." 


  • 0

#104 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,222 posts

Posted 08 April 2020 - 0702 AM

 

 

 

 

 

Don't get too upset, like many Americans, foreign affairs is not that important compared to domestic ones. If one looks at the geography and history of the U.S. you can see why. Second, personally I work basically a full-time job as an ophthalmic photographer and I own several rental properties which will enable me to retire in not a rich, but a decent retirement in about 10 years at 70 years young. Finally I serve on two church committees and volunteer for local Conservative causes locally, especially property and tax issues.  So don't take this personally, but foreign affairs is a time luxury that I mostly do without and without harm being done to me. Are foreign relations/military history Interesting -- sometimes, crucial -- nope!

Tank Net is basically a site that would be geared to foreign affairs no matter what country the poster is from. I have learned from the posters on this Grate Site over the years including yours. I will read the links you provided, but for me, a synopsis from intelligent individuals such as yourself does suffice. 

 

 

Well I think your take on it is a nice way in how a military forums board can be lived on. Share current affair events. Learn about history and battles. And so on.

 

Well, it's kind of innocently naive really IMHO. There are real consequences to these events. Some events within the "foreign affairs" tab have directly affected even TNers such as the collapse of Venezuela. Many other examples really.

 

I appreciate the compliments. But I am not after plain personal satisfaction by showing off what I know. I have the freedom to post whatever whenever I want on these boards and the internet, so I will, and not take that ability for granted.


  • 0

#105 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,222 posts

Posted 08 April 2020 - 0720 AM

 

 

 

 

Jason, the best analogy I can think of is the one pertaining to U.S. sports. Diplomatically, were in the pre-season. We're pretty sure we know what our team and our opponents can do before hand, but you can never really know until the end of the season, but that's why the game is played, to see who wins.

Now everyone on this Grate Sight and the rest of the world knows that pre-season foreign relations canunfortunately, become a regular season of war, and in the U.S. almost all of us will be spectators in this. But in the "game" of domestic events, all Americans are players or are affected by the outcome of the "game." 

 

 

Domestic relations matter to the defense situation in the Indo-Pacific as well. If the US gets sick on a domestic issue and becomes unable to carry out the commitments it has saddle itself into, then the other so-called "allies" have to make do without the US. So of course domestic affairs matter. In that way, Japanese domestic affairs matter too actually. The proponents of reducing illegal immigration in the US could use Japan as a role model actually.


  • 0

#106 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,968 posts

Posted 08 April 2020 - 1021 AM

Historically, China has lacked military aggressiveness and has fought only border conflicts, even those only briefly, except for crossing the Yalu in late 1950 to fight UN forces for a few years, a major border conflict so to speak. There seems little more evidence of aggressiveness except to modernize and match the major powers, regardless of cost.

 

Their version of unsinkable aircraft carriers in the S China Sea would function no better than the IJN version in 1944-45, and may be more ruse than anything else. Probably Confucianism in play.


  • 0

#107 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,222 posts

Posted 08 April 2020 - 1046 AM

Historically, China has lacked military aggressiveness and has fought only border conflicts, even those only briefly, except for crossing the Yalu in late 1950 to fight UN forces for a few years, a major border conflict so to speak. There seems little more evidence of aggressiveness except to modernize and match the major powers, regardless of cost.
 
Their version of unsinkable aircraft carriers in the S China Sea would function no better than the IJN version in 1944-45, and may be more ruse than anything else. Probably Confucianism in play.


Mao's China's economy was crap. Deng Xiaoping finally get China on the path of economic growth by 1980, to which, after punishing Vietnam in a land war and kicking Vietnam out of the Parcel island group, China's focus has been economic growth. Their claim on Taiwan remains and their threat on Taiwan was evident in 1996 when it was having its first democratically presidential election, PRC made threats including sending rockets into the sea, to which the US parked US carriers besides Taiwan as a sign of support to Taiwan's presidential election, where an independence minded candidate won. The lesson was clear. Economic power first. Then military power.
  • 0

#108 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,333 posts

Posted 08 April 2020 - 1050 AM

Historically, China has lacked military aggressiveness and has fought only border conflicts, even those only briefly, except for crossing the Yalu in late 1950 to fight UN forces for a few years, a major border conflict so to speak. There seems little more evidence of aggressiveness except to modernize and match the major powers, regardless of cost.

 

Their version of unsinkable aircraft carriers in the S China Sea would function no better than the IJN version in 1944-45, and may be more ruse than anything else. Probably Confucianism in play.

Well they did intervene in Vietnam twice Ken. One to support their war against the US, the other time to try to prevent Vietnams intervention in Cambodia. Then there is Tibet, and their onrunning campaign against Taiwan which in the early 50s required the US Navy's presence to keep the buggers at bay. Then there was the stand off with the Soviets, including the Damansky Island battle. So whilst I would admit they have had a quiet time for the past 25 years, it wasnt always thus. its notable most of that time has been spent since the cold war is building up a large navy and modernizing their Army and Air Force. I doubt they would be doing all that for reasons of national prestige.


  • 0

#109 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,257 posts

Posted 08 April 2020 - 1123 AM

Historically, China has lacked military aggressiveness and has fought only border conflicts, even those only briefly, except for crossing the Yalu in late 1950 to fight UN forces for a few years, a major border conflict so to speak. There seems little more evidence of aggressiveness except to modernize and match the major powers, regardless of cost.

 

Their version of unsinkable aircraft carriers in the S China Sea would function no better than the IJN version in 1944-45, and may be more ruse than anything else. Probably Confucianism in play.

 

Some Art of War is very likely in play as well. Washington staking a military position in the SCS that pushes Beijing and Taipei into a political alliance of shared island claim interests sounds ideal...for Hanoi.

 

History says their current dynasty will eventually fall, but that their culture and philosophy will continue. Their Confucianism has remained long after their dynasties have crumbled, interestingly.


Edited by Nobu, 08 April 2020 - 1130 AM.

  • 0

#110 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,257 posts

Posted 08 April 2020 - 1150 AM

Im reminded of something I read in a book on Kissinger, about when he met Mao. Kissinger made a comment, and Mao replied something about being a Monk, that defied any understanding even when the translation was made. It took 25 years for an academic in the US to accurately figure out what Mao was actually saying and translate it. The basic point im making is, China is foreign. Far more than any other asian nation (other than perhaps North Korea), and whilst in many respects they have westernized, we probably should not mistake that as thinking their mindset and world outlook is identical to ours.

 

Kissinger's initial reaction, other than possibly questioning the correctness of the translation itself, may have been that Mao was losing his mind.

 

It  just means that what looks reasonable to us, may look wholly unreasonable to them, and vice versa.

 

For there to be a realization 25 years later that Mao was in fact lucid, is a sign that both sides may understand this.


Edited by Nobu, 08 April 2020 - 1155 AM.

  • 0

#111 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,333 posts

Posted 08 April 2020 - 1245 PM

Well read people may appreciate that. People who obsess over their Twitter feeds? Perhaps not.
  • 0

#112 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,968 posts

Posted 08 April 2020 - 1525 PM

 

Historically, China has lacked military aggressiveness and has fought only border conflicts, even those only briefly, except for crossing the Yalu in late 1950 to fight UN forces for a few years, a major border conflict so to speak. There seems little more evidence of aggressiveness except to modernize and match the major powers, regardless of cost.

 

Their version of unsinkable aircraft carriers in the S China Sea would function no better than the IJN version in 1944-45, and may be more ruse than anything else. Probably Confucianism in play.

Well they did intervene in Vietnam twice Ken. One to support their war against the US, the other time to try to prevent Vietnams intervention in Cambodia. Then there is Tibet, and their onrunning campaign against Taiwan which in the early 50s required the US Navy's presence to keep the buggers at bay. Then there was the stand off with the Soviets, including the Damansky Island battle. So whilst I would admit they have had a quiet time for the past 25 years, it wasnt always thus. its notable most of that time has been spent since the cold war is building up a large navy and modernizing their Army and Air Force. I doubt they would be doing all that for reasons of national prestige.

 

These are hardly examples of aggressive conduct of war. Show me a sustained offensive effort or campaign for, say, a year with forces in action throughout? For instance, had their offensive vs. India in Kashmir lasted longer, it might have qualified.


Edited by Ken Estes, 08 April 2020 - 1528 PM.

  • 0

#113 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,222 posts

Posted 08 April 2020 - 1642 PM

Historically, China has lacked military aggressiveness and has fought only border conflicts, even those only briefly, except for crossing the Yalu in late 1950 to fight UN forces for a few years, a major border conflict so to speak. There seems little more evidence of aggressiveness except to modernize and match the major powers, regardless of cost.
 
Their version of unsinkable aircraft carriers in the S China Sea would function no better than the IJN version in 1944-45, and may be more ruse than anything else. Probably Confucianism in play.

Well they did intervene in Vietnam twice Ken. One to support their war against the US, the other time to try to prevent Vietnams intervention in Cambodia. Then there is Tibet, and their onrunning campaign against Taiwan which in the early 50s required the US Navy's presence to keep the buggers at bay. Then there was the stand off with the Soviets, including the Damansky Island battle. So whilst I would admit they have had a quiet time for the past 25 years, it wasnt always thus. its notable most of that time has been spent since the cold war is building up a large navy and modernizing their Army and Air Force. I doubt they would be doing all that for reasons of national prestige.
These are hardly examples of aggressive conduct of war. Show me a sustained offensive effort or campaign for, say, a year with forces in action throughout? For instance, had their offensive vs. India in Kashmir lasted longer, it might have qualified.

Both TR and RR have not been needed here then if going by your conclusion. Both can go home without shame and chain of command drama.
  • 0

#114 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,257 posts

Posted 08 April 2020 - 1652 PM

 

 

Historically, China has lacked military aggressiveness and has fought only border conflicts, even those only briefly, except for crossing the Yalu in late 1950 to fight UN forces for a few years, a major border conflict so to speak. There seems little more evidence of aggressiveness except to modernize and match the major powers, regardless of cost.

 

Their version of unsinkable aircraft carriers in the S China Sea would function no better than the IJN version in 1944-45, and may be more ruse than anything else. Probably Confucianism in play.

Well they did intervene in Vietnam twice Ken. One to support their war against the US, the other time to try to prevent Vietnams intervention in Cambodia. Then there is Tibet, and their onrunning campaign against Taiwan which in the early 50s required the US Navy's presence to keep the buggers at bay. Then there was the stand off with the Soviets, including the Damansky Island battle. So whilst I would admit they have had a quiet time for the past 25 years, it wasnt always thus. its notable most of that time has been spent since the cold war is building up a large navy and modernizing their Army and Air Force. I doubt they would be doing all that for reasons of national prestige.

 

These are hardly examples of aggressive conduct of war. Show me a sustained offensive effort or campaign for, say, a year with forces in action throughout? For instance, had their offensive vs. India in Kashmir lasted longer, it might have qualified.

 

According to Kissenger, the operational planning for their offensive vs. India was apparently based heavily on their previous war against it. The war in the 7th Century AD.

 

"Historically" indeed.


  • 0

#115 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,968 posts

Posted 09 April 2020 - 0207 AM

 

 

 

Historically, China has lacked military aggressiveness and has fought only border conflicts, even those only briefly, except for crossing the Yalu in late 1950 to fight UN forces for a few years, a major border conflict so to speak. There seems little more evidence of aggressiveness except to modernize and match the major powers, regardless of cost.
 
Their version of unsinkable aircraft carriers in the S China Sea would function no better than the IJN version in 1944-45, and may be more ruse than anything else. Probably Confucianism in play.

Well they did intervene in Vietnam twice Ken. One to support their war against the US, the other time to try to prevent Vietnams intervention in Cambodia. Then there is Tibet, and their onrunning campaign against Taiwan which in the early 50s required the US Navy's presence to keep the buggers at bay. Then there was the stand off with the Soviets, including the Damansky Island battle. So whilst I would admit they have had a quiet time for the past 25 years, it wasnt always thus. its notable most of that time has been spent since the cold war is building up a large navy and modernizing their Army and Air Force. I doubt they would be doing all that for reasons of national prestige.
These are hardly examples of aggressive conduct of war. Show me a sustained offensive effort or campaign for, say, a year with forces in action throughout? For instance, had their offensive vs. India in Kashmir lasted longer, it might have qualified.

Both TR and RR have not been needed here then if going by your conclusion. Both can go home without shame and chain of command drama.

 

 

 

??? Seems to me the naval surge to the W Pacific came in order to impress the North Koreans in the previous year. The Clown in Chief ordered four CV battle groups out there, breaking the fixed training/deployment cycles for the CV battle groups, materially contributing to the lack of trained and ready crews who could not avoid merchantmen at night.

 

He knows not what he is doing in any executive department's affairs, least of all DOD.


Edited by Ken Estes, 09 April 2020 - 0209 AM.

  • 0

#116 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,333 posts

Posted 09 April 2020 - 0212 AM

 

 

 

Historically, China has lacked military aggressiveness and has fought only border conflicts, even those only briefly, except for crossing the Yalu in late 1950 to fight UN forces for a few years, a major border conflict so to speak. There seems little more evidence of aggressiveness except to modernize and match the major powers, regardless of cost.

 

Their version of unsinkable aircraft carriers in the S China Sea would function no better than the IJN version in 1944-45, and may be more ruse than anything else. Probably Confucianism in play.

Well they did intervene in Vietnam twice Ken. One to support their war against the US, the other time to try to prevent Vietnams intervention in Cambodia. Then there is Tibet, and their onrunning campaign against Taiwan which in the early 50s required the US Navy's presence to keep the buggers at bay. Then there was the stand off with the Soviets, including the Damansky Island battle. So whilst I would admit they have had a quiet time for the past 25 years, it wasnt always thus. its notable most of that time has been spent since the cold war is building up a large navy and modernizing their Army and Air Force. I doubt they would be doing all that for reasons of national prestige.

 

These are hardly examples of aggressive conduct of war. Show me a sustained offensive effort or campaign for, say, a year with forces in action throughout? For instance, had their offensive vs. India in Kashmir lasted longer, it might have qualified.

 

According to Kissenger, the operational planning for their offensive vs. India was apparently based heavily on their previous war against it. The war in the 7th Century AD.

 

"Historically" indeed.

 

I forgot india, nice reminder. Kicked off during the Cuban missile crisis IIRC.


  • 0

#117 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,333 posts

Posted 09 April 2020 - 0221 AM

 

 

Historically, China has lacked military aggressiveness and has fought only border conflicts, even those only briefly, except for crossing the Yalu in late 1950 to fight UN forces for a few years, a major border conflict so to speak. There seems little more evidence of aggressiveness except to modernize and match the major powers, regardless of cost.

 

Their version of unsinkable aircraft carriers in the S China Sea would function no better than the IJN version in 1944-45, and may be more ruse than anything else. Probably Confucianism in play.

Well they did intervene in Vietnam twice Ken. One to support their war against the US, the other time to try to prevent Vietnams intervention in Cambodia. Then there is Tibet, and their onrunning campaign against Taiwan which in the early 50s required the US Navy's presence to keep the buggers at bay. Then there was the stand off with the Soviets, including the Damansky Island battle. So whilst I would admit they have had a quiet time for the past 25 years, it wasnt always thus. its notable most of that time has been spent since the cold war is building up a large navy and modernizing their Army and Air Force. I doubt they would be doing all that for reasons of national prestige.

 

These are hardly examples of aggressive conduct of war. Show me a sustained offensive effort or campaign for, say, a year with forces in action throughout? For instance, had their offensive vs. India in Kashmir lasted longer, it might have qualified.

 

Korea?

 

I dont think sustained effort is really a barometer of aggression. For example, Argentina took the Falklands in about 48 hours and never did anything again, till we tried to retake it. Israel took Jerusalem and the Golan in the 6 day war and have remained there ever since.  I dont think anyone would claim that isnt aggression, even if it was distinctly limited compared to other efforts. Besides, China has been playing an intimidation campaign against Taiwan since about 1948. That would make it one of the largest military campaigns on record.

 

Is the America and the West doomed to be at war with China? Clearly not. But with all the weaponry they have, and their increased tendency to patrol as far away as the Mediterranean (they even transited the English Channel on the way to Russia), then the potential of a conflict with them needs to be considered.

 

Its been said China is biding its time and waiting for the US to war itself out pacifying the middle east, and they are happy to let them get on with it. But when the US withdraws from the world stage (and if the present command in chief seems dead set on that) then China is going to have a free hand to throw its weight about. There is no reason to suppose they wont if they are allowed to do it, and when they do, its unlikely to be always to our advantage.


  • 0

#118 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,222 posts

Posted 09 April 2020 - 0225 AM

Historically, China has lacked military aggressiveness and has fought only border conflicts, even those only briefly, except for crossing the Yalu in late 1950 to fight UN forces for a few years, a major border conflict so to speak. There seems little more evidence of aggressiveness except to modernize and match the major powers, regardless of cost.
 
Their version of unsinkable aircraft carriers in the S China Sea would function no better than the IJN version in 1944-45, and may be more ruse than anything else. Probably Confucianism in play.

Well they did intervene in Vietnam twice Ken. One to support their war against the US, the other time to try to prevent Vietnams intervention in Cambodia. Then there is Tibet, and their onrunning campaign against Taiwan which in the early 50s required the US Navy's presence to keep the buggers at bay. Then there was the stand off with the Soviets, including the Damansky Island battle. So whilst I would admit they have had a quiet time for the past 25 years, it wasnt always thus. its notable most of that time has been spent since the cold war is building up a large navy and modernizing their Army and Air Force. I doubt they would be doing all that for reasons of national prestige.
These are hardly examples of aggressive conduct of war. Show me a sustained offensive effort or campaign for, say, a year with forces in action throughout? For instance, had their offensive vs. India in Kashmir lasted longer, it might have qualified.
Both TR and RR have not been needed here then if going by your conclusion. Both can go home without shame and chain of command drama.
 
 
??? Seems to me the naval surge to the W Pacific came in order to impress the North Koreans in the previous year. The Clown in Chief ordered four CV battle groups out there, breaking the fixed training/deployment cycles for the CV battle groups, materially contributing to the lack of trained and ready crews who could not avoid merchantmen at night.
 
He knows not what he is doing in any executive department's affairs, least of all DOD.
There was a surge of US military activity as a show of force towsrds the DPRK and that didn't only put strain on naval warships but I reckon it also took a toll on the B-1s as well.

Although behind the DPRK was China. Things really started getting tense between the US and DPRK in April 2017 which was when IIRC Pence declared "the end of strategic patience" and when Trump's rhetoric really picked up towards the DPRK. But month after month in trying to get China to cut the supply route to DPRK, China did nothing. In fact China had been doing nothing towards preventing DPRKs nuclear and BM programs. So US activity reached a point of 3 carriers together in the Sea of Japan for such an awesome show of force, a 4th flat top being JS Ise (or Hyuga) in the middle of a three point triangle formed by the three Nimitz class carriers. Along with Trump's rhetoric aimed not only at DPRK but also on China because he called out that only China could cut that life line to DPRK, as was pointed out plenty of times on Fox Business by guest speaker general Jack Keanes. China finally went along with reducing oil supply to DPRK at the UNSC by Nov/Dec of 2017.

But before that, in the summer of 2016, the US sailed a two carrier fleet through the South China Sea as a message to China just a few weeks before the UN tribunal results regarding the SCS was to be made on July 12th.
http://www.tank-net....63#entry1249131

Edited by JasonJ, 09 April 2020 - 0227 AM.

  • 0

#119 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,968 posts

Posted 09 April 2020 - 0913 AM

I had already mentioned Korea, Stuart, as a longer termed border conflict. The Chinese did give warning to the UN forces not to go north, after all.


  • 0

#120 Manic Moran

Manic Moran

    Mad Irish Tanking Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,650 posts

Posted 09 April 2020 - 0949 AM

Going back on subject, for a moment, I did some digging on the Army's current watercraft fleet just to see the status of how many floaty things they had with a bow ramp which could drop a tank ashore. Turns out it's about 35 LLCs (4 tanks per), and the Navy's got another 30+ LCUs (1 or 2 tanks). The Army's LCM-8 is too small to take anything bigger than an M60, construction has started on the prototype of a new MSV-L to replace it. Plus, I guess there's no reason the Navy can't stick Army heavy units onto an amphib with LCACs.

 

So apparently the Army is still in the 'landing on enemy shores' business, if not the 'opposed landing' business. I wonder if there's an official division of labour between when the Marines are supposed to hit the beach vs Army. Also I might wonder when's the last time an Army unit did anything with those ships in larger than company strength.


  • 0