China Plans To Seize South China Sea Island From Philippines, Says "Battle Will Be Restricted"

ketsuko
reply to post by Bassago

 

If it came right down to it and it was a matter of survival, would you really not do whatever you had to in order to win?

And further, do you not think that they would hesitate to do the same?

edit on 13-1-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

I'll quote that, It's a grave mistake to underestimate the determination of the Chinese if it came down to a real fight.

Hypothetical Response to US as outlined by China

Chinese missiles hit runways, fuel lines, barracks and supply depots at U.S. Air Force bases in Japan and South Korea. Long-range warheads destroy American satellites, crippling Air Force surveillance and communication networks. A nuclear fireball erupts high above the Pacific Ocean, ionizing the atmosphere and scrambling radars and radio feeds.

This is China's anti-U.S. sucker punch strategy.

It's designed to strike America's military suddenly, stunning and stalling the Air Force more than any other service.

They have already ruled out conventional warfare. China's air force may be less than ultra-tech but its certainly large, and with our ships harrowingly close to mainland, it would not be a good day.

reply to post by EA006


No no, not in our backyard, take it elsewhere.

reply to post by vind21


Yes, and when they launch Nukes we will respond in kind nuking every major city they own. Right now, we can stop most of their missiles. They will stop few of ours. So it's not much of a sucker punch when the foe is not unconscious and then beats you over the head with his metal bat until your brain no longer functions.

reply to post by vind21


The ionizing feedback would affect China as well.

Whoever thought out that scenario obviously had no military background.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Not to mention we detect the LAUNCHING of nukes, and would repond by launching our nukes. Launching of nukes is serious, and would end badly for everyone, most of all China.

reply to post by Bassago

While it's rare. I'd have to completely disagree with your post philosophically.

If the USA and China go at it ... all bets are off ... and the chips have to fall where they may. A war of this nature WILL be waged against populations. If it were left to me to direct ... anyone mentioning the Geneva Convention or using the words War Crimes would be deemed an Enemy of the State ... and summary execution would be the order of the day.

ETA: A bit of warrior wisdom from Curtis LeMay:

There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn't bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders.

My solution to the problem would be to tell [the North Vietnamese Communists] frankly that they've got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression or we're going to bomb them into the Stone Age. And we would shove them back into the Stone Age with Air power or Naval power—not with ground forces.

Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier.

Or when the Russians had aquired (through connivance and treachery of Westerns with warped minds) the atomic bomb - and yet still didn't have any stockpile of the weapons. That was the era when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it.

China has The Bomb. Sometime in the future--25, 50, 75 years hence--what will the situation be like then? By that time the Chinese will have the capability of delivery too. That's the reason some schools of thinking don't rule out a destruction of the Chinese military potential before the situation grows worse than it is today. It's bad enough now.

As far as casualties were concerned I think there were more casualties in the first attack on Tokyo with incendiaries than there were with the first use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The fact that it's done instantaneously, maybe that's more humane than incendiary attacks, if you can call any war act humane. I don't, particularly, so to me there wasn't much difference. A weapon is a weapon and it really doesn't make much difference how you kill a man. If you have to kill him, well, that's the evil to start with and how you do it becomes pretty secondary. I think your choice should be which weapon is the most efficient and most likely to get the whole mess over with as early as possible.

I think there are many times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons. However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their hands in horror when you mention nuclear weapons, just because of the propaganda that's been fed to them.

If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting. I don't mind being called tough, because in this racket it's tough guys who lead the survivors.

reply to post by interupt42


Wow. That sounds like the plot to a great action-thriller novel. Too bad Tom Clancy died, he could have wrote it. All joking aside, maybe you are right. I certainly wouldn't rule it out as a possibility.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by interupt42

 

Wow. That sounds like the plot to a great action-thriller novel. Too bad Tom Clancy died, he could have wrote it. All joking aside, maybe you are right. I certainly wouldn't rule it out as a possibility.

Nope Interupt is completely correct when it comes to the chips. That is a old story and you can even find threads about it here on ATS.

But did we get them all is my question?

Argyll
reply to post by EA006

 

The U.S won't do ***t. As per.

I agree with you.

I have a feeling that China has been biding it's time, they know that the economy in the west is failing and with theirs on the up (7.6% growth in 2013) the time may well be ripe for them to start making some strategic military moves.

The US can't afford to be deploying a military machine out to the Philippines right now.

Have to disagree there. While I do think China is wise enough to avoid a potential military confrontation with the US, if they were to take such an enormous risk for such small comparative reward, they would have their proverbial behinds handed to them.

The economy in the west is nowhere near failing. Debt levels as a percentage of GDP leveled off almost 2 years ago, the economy is bigger than its ever been and has returned to reasonable growth. China has a comparatively rapidly growing economy, yes, but its also significantly smaller than the US economy, especially when one considers their population is 4x larger.

No, if China engaged the US military, which they would for certain if they were to take on the Philippines, they would be absolutely crushed. But again, it won't happen, because they're not stupid. This it's diplomatic puffing.

OccamsRazor04

EA006
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Explain.

How much of world trade do you think the US is responsible for?

Who patrols shipping lanes keeping them safe?

This is what will USA claims and will go to the area.

and this is the real reason...

According to figures quoted by the US Energy Information Administration, one Chinese estimate puts possible oil reserves as high as 213 billion barrels - 10 times the proven reserves of the US. But American scientists have estimated the amount of oil at 28 billion barrels. According to the EIA, the real wealth of the area may well be natural gas reserves. Estimates say the area holds about 900 trillion cubic ft (25 trillion cubic m) - the same as the proven reserves of Qatar.

Now you know why I'm watching that area since last US Army base in Aus (2011 ?). I'm also eyeing for the next great depression plus some other stuff to come by. There will be no war, but USA will have new enemy. Unlike USA, stupid China doesnt want to "work together" with SEA, their loss.

BTW, good job USA on drilling the the oil/gas early and better still, working with your ex enemy! Kudos!.

OccamsRazor04
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Not to mention we detect the LAUNCHING of nukes, and would repond by launching our nukes. Launching of nukes is serious, and would end badly for everyone, most of all China.

I mentioned it earlier on the thread, but I'll mention it again.

Do they have the cyber capability to muck up our ability to detect, communicate, launch? I know there have been articles running around that mention that our defense departments have been hacked.

Or would they be more likely to just crash out Wall Street?

reply to post by TDawgRex


Nope. Probably not. But the Chinese can not know where these chips end up, and it doesn't sound like all the chips that the military is getting are defective. This may only effect a certain small percentage of our military. I'm still favoring our military, why else would we need to spend more than the next ten countries combined? It better be able to stand up to some sabotage.

ketsuko
reply to post by Bassago

 

If it came right down to it and it was a matter of survival, would you really not do whatever you had to in order to win?

And further, do you not think that they would hesitate to do the same?

edit on 13-1-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

If it comes down to a matter of survival nukes are flying so it doesn't really matter. I can guarantee you we wouldn't blow up three gorges. If we escalated to that level and nukes didn't fly, we would have a huge problem on our hands. Aside from our own hydro plants being blown up, all 65 nuclear plants in the US would turn into Fukushimas as cruise missiles hit them.

The best way to defend the nation here is to stick to the agreement that leaves these targets alone.

reply to post by NullVoid


You also forgot all the rare earth materials that are in that area. Though hard to get to, they are more precious than gold resource wise.

That area is the next gold rush...and now everybody has the tech to mine it as well.

reply to post by Aazadan


That's wishful thinking. The Three Gorges Dam is a legitimate target, just because of the damage it's destruction would cause. And if those in SATO thought that destroying it would end hostilities sooner...they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Snarl
reply to post by Bassago

 

While it's rare. I'd have to completely disagree with your post philosophically.

If the USA and China go at it ... all bets are off ... and the chips have to fall where they may. A war of this nature WILL be waged against populations. If it were left to me to direct ... anyone mentioning the Geneva Convention or using the words War Crimes would be deemed an Enemy of the State ... and summary execution would be the order of the day.

ETA: A bit of warrior wisdom from Curtis LeMay:

There are no innocent civilians.

However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their hands in horror when you mention nuclear weapons, just because of the propaganda that's been fed to them.

If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting. I don't mind being called tough, because in this racket it's tough guys who lead the survivors.

I think there is a difference between fighting and taking a military objective (Zhongye Island) and the wholesale destruction of civilians. The infrastructure not so much but to target that specific dam in order to subdue the Chinese wouldn't work anyway. They could loose 350 million people and it wouldn't stop them at least as far as the fighting was concerned. It might turn the rest of the world against us though but maybe not.

As far as philosophical ideology we are signatories of the Geneva Convention. Personally if I am fighting for my life on a battlefield are bets are off and anything the appears a threat is going to get it even if I need a nuke. Would I then target a civilian population center to take the fight out of the enemy? No but that's just me. Once war starts all bets are off in a generalized sort of way and what's a heinous crime today may not seem so bad tomorrow. Guess we won't know until we do it or someone does it to us.

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."

Sun Tzu

BABYBULL24
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."

Sun Tzu

Like that has ever happened. Excuse me, it has. Hitler annexing Austria for instance. But it is very rare.

TDawgRex

BABYBULL24
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."

Sun Tzu

Like that has ever happened. Excuse me, it has. Hitler annexing Austria for instance. But it is very rare.

Alexander the Great - Egypt.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Nope. Probably not. But the Chinese can not know where these chips end up, and it doesn't sound like all the chips that the military is getting are defective. This may only effect a certain small percentage of our military. I'm still favoring our military, why else would we need to spend more than the next ten countries combined? It better be able to stand up to some sabotage.

They don't need to know where they all end up. They just need to have enough of them out there to cause havoc. However, there is a good probability one of our systems has their chips on it.

www.levin.senate.gov...
China was found to be the source country for suspect counterfeit parts in an overwhelming majority of those cases, with more than 70 percent of the suspect parts traced to that country. - See more at: www.levin.senate.gov... uf

and it doesn't sound like all the chips that the military is getting are defective. This may only effect a certain small percentage of our military

We have no way of knowing this since we do not have the man power or technology to test at this level . The only ones we are aware of are the ones that were designed with monetary intentions, because they cut corners and they failed during stress testing which required further research .

The ones that would be intended for sabotage by China gov't wouldn't use cheap parts to be easily detectable during QA and stress tests.

Conclusion 3: The Department of Defense lacks knowledge of the scope and impact of counterfeit parts on critical defense systems. In a March 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office stated that “DOD is limited in its ability to determine the extent to which counterfeit parts exist in its supply chain.” The Committee’s findings support that statement.

Here is a study where they actually found a purposely designed back door chips used by critical systems.
www.cl.cam.ac.uk...

www.technologyreview.com...

Compromised chips are the most covert of backdoors, says Columbia’s Sethumadhavan. There is essentially no way for the buyer of a completed chip to check that it doesn’t have a backdoor, he says, and there are a multitude of ways that a design can be compromised.

“Making a chip is a global process with hundreds of steps and many different companies involved,” says Sethumadhavan. “Each and every step in the process can be compromised.”