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

reply to post by EA006


So they have some magical "something" that you can't even contemplate what it would be. Know what, the US has magical "somethings" too that would allow them to conquer all of China in 2 hours. Wow, magic is awesome, we can just say whatever we want, not have to back up, and assume whatever outcome we like! Why didn't I just use magical "somethings" to win arguments all my life, so much easier than using facts.

Bassago
From the article:

The Chinese navy has drawn a detailed combat plan to seize the island and the battle will be restricted within the South China Sea.

I'd say China has already determined any type of full scale war is a no win situation. Hence they would strike the island and take it as fast as possible and dig in. They will do everything possible to hold it probably surround it with their navy and fight like hell to maintain position. If they can do that then the Philippines and US would have to take the attack back to the island where the Chinese can scream they're being invaded to the UN (their island so they say.) Possession is nine tenths and all.

They'd have no case. Once they attacked the Philippines, the Philippines would take that as an open act of war and THEY would be at the UN faster than China could dig in and claim possession rights. You are probably right that China has realized that they cannot win anything outside of a regional war, but attacking the Philippines won't result in a regional war no matter how much China wants it to be so. You can't go to war and pick all the countries that will be involved.

OccamsRazor04

EA006

your strong and powerful, but this arrogance is also your greatest weakness.

Glad someone else sees this.

So when the 30 year old fully grown man looks at the 5 year old and says you have no chance to win a fight with me, but in 15 years you might .. that's arrogance and not simple logic?

It wasn't specific to you. Don't throw your toys out

OccamsRazor04
reply to post by EA006

 

So they have some magical "something" that you can't even contemplate what it would be. Know what, the US has magical "somethings" too that would allow them to conquer all of China in 2 hours. Wow, magic is awesome, we can just say whatever we want, not have to back up, and assume whatever outcome we like! Why didn't I just use magical "somethings" to win arguments all my life, so much easier than using facts.

No they didn't bring Harry Potter with them. That may be the name on the Dirty bombs they brought, tactical nukes, intelligence gathering equipment, etc. Not magic.

EA006

OccamsRazor04
reply to post by EA006

 

So they have some magical "something" that you can't even contemplate what it would be. Know what, the US has magical "somethings" too that would allow them to conquer all of China in 2 hours. Wow, magic is awesome, we can just say whatever we want, not have to back up, and assume whatever outcome we like! Why didn't I just use magical "somethings" to win arguments all my life, so much easier than using facts.

No they didn't bring Harry Potter with them. That may be the name on the Dirty bombs they brought, tactical nukes, intelligence gathering equipment, etc. Not magic.

Do you honestly believe that China could smuggle a tactical nuke into Mexico? And then again into the US to even be able to do damage with it? Heck even if they did pull it off and detonate it, it would just enrage us even more. It's not like the bomb would do any large scale damage to the country as a whole (sure there could be massive loss of life, but nothing we couldn't recover from)

The only chance China has, is if they can somehow manage to cripple our infrastructure through some sort of hacking attack, but they can pull that off from China, so I see no basis for a "magic" weapon of any sort in Mexico.

EA006

OccamsRazor04
reply to post by EA006

 

So they have some magical "something" that you can't even contemplate what it would be. Know what, the US has magical "somethings" too that would allow them to conquer all of China in 2 hours. Wow, magic is awesome, we can just say whatever we want, not have to back up, and assume whatever outcome we like! Why didn't I just use magical "somethings" to win arguments all my life, so much easier than using facts.

No they didn't bring Harry Potter with them. That may be the name on the Dirty bombs they brought, tactical nukes, intelligence gathering equipment, etc. Not magic.

If they used dirty nukes America would destroy them with nukes. As soon as war broke out Mexico would round up the Chinese soldiers and would be PISSED at China. Especially if you think China brought DIRTY NUKES onto Mexican soil .. that is an act of war.

Forgive the interruption to this fascinating war gaming discussion, I know very little about the actual military abilities of the nations involved. I'd like to get opinions on a question that was briefly touched on at the beginning of the thread. I'm curious, at the moment, not about "could we" win, but "would we" fight?

The decision is Obama's and we have seen that he is willing to take a remarkable degree of control over decisions usually left to the military. We also know that he is willing to make military decisions based, at least in part, on what it means to his career. I assume that the Republicans would call for retaliation. Wouldn't that trigger a knee-jerk reaction to reject retaliation as an option?

Further, I have read about the change in the top leadership in the military and a new emphasis on social and environmental factors. He has emphasized frequently his commitment to diplomacy over force. This would indicate that actually fighting is a lower priority than it has been. I also understand that a lot of training and maintenance has been deferred, rendering our forces weaker and making a war a riskier option. He's not good at making risky decisions.

I can easily see him making a speech about the insignificance of one island, at least insignificant enough to not risk nuclear war. He still has his Nobel peace prize. Obama would talk about the necessity of spending money at home and not interfering in minor squabbles on the other side of the world. Rapidly increased military spending would resurrects the issue of deficits again, just when it might do serious damage to him and his party. Obama might very well call on the United Nations to consider the question.

And whatever else he would do, he would look at opinion polls to see how starting another war would affect the Democrats chances in the November elections.

As was said about Viet Nam, we weren't beaten militarily, our politicians surrendered when the war lost its appeal for them. Does a retaliatory war hold any appeal for Obama? I assume we could win, my question is would we even fight?

reply to post by EA006


EA006, I have a supposition for you. If you believe that China has this super, secret, and awesome trick that can somehow bring our might down to a more manageable level to them, why haven't they used it yet? China has to know that an attack on the Philippines or Japan would involve us. It would therefore make the most sense to do a preemptive attack against us, cripple our capabilities and while we are reeling, hit the targets in the South East sea. The idea being that you want to hit your enemy at their most vulnerable point, and if China lets the US get into full military mode, it's game over. Therefore, the most vulnerable point is when we aren't expecting anything and to do a surprise attack.

This would give the Chinese the ability to assert control over these islands, hunker down for the defensive game, and start preparing for our counterattack or continue to press their advantage depending on how well the plan went down.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

the Philippines would take that as an open act of war and THEY would be at the UN faster than China could dig in and claim possession rights.

Maybe so but that won't stop China from claiming the island is and was always theirs. I'm uncertain how they work this stuff out at the UN but I could see Russia at least backing their claim on that venue. Whether that will help China I have no idea.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


My short answer is yes. China could smuggle something like that into Mexico. Hide it and wait.
No magic tricks involved. It's all out war. Do you think the Chinese haven't got pods like the Russians in America?
Strategic hidden weapons.
I kinda get the feeling this threads falling on deaf ears. Again: " if they do this we'll nuke them".
I have no doubt America will retaliate.
You have enemy troops on your border. Maybe they're there on a botanical mission....

To me it looks like, china is saying to USA that they dont fear them and they dont care about dept either.. Also maybe something like, hey yous go and bomb countries and take over, well we can go on about it too. But i also think that china doesnt do this just for show, i doupt they would get into any battle with USA if they didnt have some serious tricks in their sleeves.

I get it that USA is the big boss in the world stages right now but for how long tho? Havnt we seen this happend all over and over again in the past tho? One rises above everyone elses, tries to control more than it can chew and when others see one weakness they come in and just massacre whole thing in pieces, allies or not bfore.. Vicious cycle we live in.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Mate i'm not saying China has a super secret weapon. I'm saying that effective use of what they have in a war with America when it's not expected in a move like the Japanese, would cause major problems.

reply to post by charles1952


I kind of answered this question earlier in the thread. The US would have to go to war to save face. Unlike Syria, the Philippines is a long held ally with a mutual aggression pact. If they get attacked, we are obligated to back them up as per our treaty. If we didn't we'd lose a lot of respect internationally, look extremely weak, and would open the door for other countries to defy us or our allies. The media would (at the request of the government) start spewing forth pro-war propaganda and rile up the countryside, and we'd quickly start a war. I also explained earlier in this thread that a new, true, conventional war would be super positive for the US economy. Our situation closely mirrors the US from the 1930's. Even down to a Democratic president pushing all sorts of social programs that weren't working.

EA006
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Mate i'm not saying China has a super secret weapon. I'm saying that effective use of what they have in a war with America when it's not expected in a move like the Japanese, would cause major problems.

And I'm saying that the numbers, figures, and facts are telling a different story. Sure the Chinese could have some awesome ace up their sleeve or a general so awesome that is able to deploy and use never seen before tactics that somehow manage to defy us and beat us, but the odds are devastatingly against them. All I'm trying to do is get you to admit that fact. I never rule out any possibility, but that doesn't mean I won't side with the most likely outcome and until you demonstrate that China has the capability to even utilize its forces in a way to even pose a threat to the US military (let alone the actual country), I'm going to disagree with you.

charles1952
Forgive the interruption to this fascinating war gaming discussion, I know very little about the actual military abilities of the nations involved. I'd like to get opinions on a question that was briefly touched on at the beginning of the thread. I'm curious, at the moment, not about "could we" win, but "would we" fight?

The decision is Obama's and we have seen that he is willing to take a remarkable degree of control over decisions usually left to the military. We also know that he is willing to make military decisions based, at least in part, on what it means to his career. I assume that the Republicans would call for retaliation. Wouldn't that trigger a knee-jerk reaction to reject retaliation as an option?

Well it would depend on what the American public wanted perhaps. The PI is as close an ally as you can get, they were very close to becoming the 51st state.

Further, I have read about the change in the top leadership in the military and a new emphasis on social and environmental factors. He has emphasized frequently his commitment to diplomacy over force. This would indicate that actually fighting is a lower priority than it has been. I also understand that a lot of training and maintenance has been deferred, rendering our forces weaker and making a war a riskier option. He's not good at making risky decisions.

Well what Obama claims and what he does are often two different things. You can look at his use of drone strikes as an indicator of his true self, not to mention he supposedly was telling his aides he is really good at killing people (no lie). The change in leadership I could not tell you what it means, the lack of maintanence is very real and would cause higher than needed casualties I would imagine.

I can easily see him making a speech about the insignificance of one island, at least insignificant enough to not risk nuclear war. He still has his Nobel peace prize. Obama would talk about the necessity of spending money at home and not interfering in minor squabbles on the other side of the world. Rapidly increased military spending would resurrects the issue of deficits again, just when it might do serious damage to him and his party. Obama might very well call on the United Nations to consider the question.

I would say the opposite, I think he knows much of what he has done has been a failure, and he would see this as his opportunity to shine. I think he clearly cares little for anything other than himself and his legacy .. imagine being THE President to defeat China?? That would be a huge coup and would probably be the only way Democrats win the next election.

And whatever else he would do, he would look at opinion polls to see how starting another war would affect the Democrats chances in the November elections.

Haha I actually eluded to this earlier, I agree!!

As was said about Viet Nam, we weren't beaten militarily, our politicians surrendered when the war lost its appeal for them. Does a retaliatory war hold any appeal for Obama? I assume we could win, my question is would we even fight?

This would be more analogous to WWII or the war with the USSR that never happened. The American people never saw Vietnam as an enemy. They sure see China that way, so the dynamics of popular opinion and what the military will be allowed to do will be different.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


What are Chinese capabilities? You seem to know so much about this.

reply to post by charles1952


Well, Obama does have a track record for throwing allies under the bus.

Nice observation.

reply to post by EA006


Look, I can't stand crazy American patriots as much as the next guy. They embarrass me.

But the fact is, military and defense is what the US does. Not only do we spend obscene amounts of money on military and defense, we are the world's largest exporter of military equipment. It is just what we do. It is not arrogant to state it. I do agree we need to spend less. It is what it is.

The only thing China has on us is bodies to add to the military. Their generals have even said there is no way they could take on the US right now. Think about it, they haven't even put anyone on the moon.

The US has been preparing for nukes from China and N. Korea since the beginning of the Clinton administration. We have anti-ballistic missiles that can handle anything coming in, long or short.

Do you think that brains behind the US military haven't considered what you proposed?

I understand it is unnerving for a country to have that much power, and it seems even worse when Americans boast about it. But it is not arrogance to claim that we have it.

No one complains that Brazil can claim to have the best coffee in the world. No one complains that Europe can claim they have the best football in the world. Or that the Netherlands is considered the greatest country to live in.
Good for them! They deserve it!
We also export the most corn. Does anyone say, damn Americans and their corn! it is simply what we do.

Americans don't sit around the dinner table at night yelling "boo yah! We can kick everyone's ass!" Most likely we hear a military project and sigh and wonder how much it cost taxpayers this time.

EA006
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

My short answer is yes. China could smuggle something like that into Mexico. Hide it and wait.
No magic tricks involved. It's all out war. Do you think the Chinese haven't got pods like the Russians in America?
Strategic hidden weapons.
I kinda get the feeling this threads falling on deaf ears. Again: " if they do this we'll nuke them".
I have no doubt America will retaliate.
You have enemy troops on your border. Maybe they're there on a botanical mission....

So why use dirty nukes when you can just launch real nukes if both end in America launching their own nukes? And what if they got caught smuggling the nuke into Mexico ... almost no reward for huge risks. Either way, China is never taking the US mainland, which was the point of your saying they have troops in China.

EA006
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

China could smuggle something like that into Mexico. Hide it and wait.

It is kinda hard to smuggle nukes around without anyone noticing.