8 ms·

Decades. Decades... and maybe in 2080 they'll be able to assert control of the South China Sea. But until then the USA Navy controls it.

sudosysgen 6y ago
This is incredibly optimistic. If their hypersonic missiles work properly they could theoretically gain control of the SCS decisively in the next 5 years, at a massive cost of course. This should be expected, military power is more or less a function of economic power, and as they rival the US in economic power they will also rival the US in military power in their own backyard. In a few decades, they could possibly outmatch the US outside the SCS as well.
- nyokodo 6y ago
  > In a few decades, they could possibly outmatch the US outside the SCS as well. China's has a number of very big problems they have to solve before they'll reach regional hegemony let alone global dominance. India is next-door, they have a massive demographic bomb coming because of the one child policy, and buying friends is unsustainable long-term, especially as those friends get wealthier too. This isn't to mention internal instability that massive concentration camps are unlikely to solve. We'll see what happens I suppose but one thing I do wish is all the best for the Chinese populace.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    India being next-door is not that big of an issue. The fixation on their demographic issue is quite ridiculous. Demographic problems are not problems in a vacuum. Demographic decline is only an issue insofar as it prevents economic growth. It turns out, the CPC is acutely aware of the issue, and considered it before putting the policy into place. The crucial fact is this one: Over 25% of the Chinese population is employed in agriculture. However, only 2% of the American population is employed in agriculture. This fact is the root cause of the demographic decline being planned and indeed wished for by the CPC. They, in effect, have a 20+% population surplus, that could be got rid of without a negative economic impact. Therefore, the Chinese economy is very unlikely to implode because of the upcoming demographic shock, as it will not negatively impact economic growth and will thus not lead to issues with either the retirement system (China already has one of the lowest retirement ages), nor with economic growth. This inscribes itself further in the process of proletarianization in which the Chinese economy is engaging in order to continue its development, as well as calculated so that the peak population will coincide with the carrying capacity of Chinese arable lands. The CCP are a lot of bad things, but they really aren't idiots. An issue that was not foreseen, however, is the gender imbalance that was created, but even that is not that bad of an issue - involuntary celibacy is significantly lower in China than, for example, the United States, and is actually one of the lowest in the world, but this is still a problem, especially for more long term relationships. People have been clamouring for the imminent fall of China for this or that, but objectively I don't see it happening.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      India being next door is a huge issue, you can't just handwave it away.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Not in the way GGP was implying. The fact that India is next to China will lead to neither the collapse of China, nor prevent it from projecting power in the South China Sea. The rise of India as a competitor to China will likely be on timescales even longer than 5-25 years. By then, circumstances will be significantly different. In any case, India is not a problem that will prevent the continued economic development nor the increased power projection ability of China.
        ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        Collapse is always a strong term, bordering on being a strawman. The fact is the SCS has too many benefactors to cede it to China. There are too many local nations that don't want that to happen in addition to the entire west. Even if China can win head to head against the US there is no way it can compete with that alliance, and there are no other potential allies that will tip the balance in China's favor. India has much to gain from joining such an alliance, if it were ever to come to that, they could finally resolve their border dispute and solidify it. They have already signed a military pact with the US last month. They matter.
        dirtyid 6y ago
        >no way it can compete with that alliance Without US, China can, trivially. China is 3x larger in population than all other SCS claimants together with 7x higher GDP. PLA Navy is building more tonnage in ships than the region combined. There's also the fact that they will never align with each other against China because they are simultaneously disputing against EACH OTHER, a fact that many people conveniently forget. USN is pretty much the only entity preventing full blown Chinese Munroe doctoring in SCS, and in many ways they've already been squeezed out. Everyone in the region is just leveraging the situation for better deals with China, i.e. Philippines and China are finally doing co-oil exploration in the region. >border dispute and solidify it This would be a huge win for China. A large reason China is pressing Ladakh so hard is because India is incapable of resolving border disputes with China who has ratified 12/14 land borders, while India has poor record settling border disputes. It's hard to cede land as a democratic leader, but Modi might pull it off. India ratifying Chinese borders would basically end Chinese fears of western theater and allow China to focus on east / Taiwan / SCS and maybe allow India to get it's shit together. And until they do, they don't substantially matter. India always matter as potential, on paper, but Indian democracy hasn't delivered, and IMO won't.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Reads like a summary of Disunited Nations's chapter on China haha.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > If their hypersonic missiles work properly they could theoretically gain control of the SCS decisively in the next 5 years, at a massive cost of course Live by the sword die by the sword. American vessels are vulnerable to hypersonic anti-ship missiles. So are Chinese. Firing on American boats on the South China Sea will turn the water into no man's land. Everyone will lose influence. Nobody will gain.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    This is a huge misreading of the situation Naval power is a means of force projection. You can control a sea without a single ship. The US is a naval power. The US cannot project power into the South China Sea without the use of Naval Power. China, however, can. Easily, in fact. Indeed, if you look at the J-20, you will notice that it is significantly larger than the F-22 and F-35. Why is that? In order to store very long range weaponry, and much higher amounts of fuel. This design aspect reflects the doctrine of sea control via air and missile power, not naval power. So, if for some reason there were no way to sail a vessel near the SCS, the China automatically, decisively, gains control thereof. Moreso, China and Russia are significantly ahead of the US in hypersonic flight technology.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > You can control a sea without a single ship Can. Mutual denial isn't control. (Seoul doesn't control the DMZ.) As you said, "naval power is a means of force projection." If China can't sail the South China Sea its options for projecting force e.g. across the Taiwan Strait are diminished. Their coastline will be safer from incursion. But offensive options will be constrained.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        I don't know why you would interpret what I wrote as mutual denial. It's not mutual denial, it is supremacy. The US requires naval power to project power into the South China Sea, China doesn't. Without naval power, China has almost uncontested control. US Military Doctrine cannot hope to control the SCS without naval control, Chinese military doctrine is built around that. Even with the US having access to advanced hypersonic missiles, China retains the option of an amphibious landing on Taiwan, for example. Indeed, hypersonic antiship missiles, for a great many reasons, only work very well against large, slow-maneuvering ships that are far away from their destination (and thus offer the attacker the option to choose when to launch), because of kinematic and targeting concerns far away from traditional targeting assets. Their offensive options are more than sufficient using purely air and missile power over the South China Sea. From then on, the ability to project power can be used to disable enemy missile launch options progressively, until the point at which supply lines can be reaffirmed.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  Hypersonic missiles have very poor terminal guidance it’s physics... all extra-atmospheric ballistic missiles are hypersonic and aren’t suitable for moving targets. Hypersonic missiles have one advantage over ballistic missiles and that is that their flight path is much lower making detection harder but it doesn’t makes it easier to hit. The US has experimented with hypersonic missiles in the 60’s and it became rather clear it wasn’t particularly worth it.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    > and it became rather clear it wasn’t particularly worth it. Wasn't worth it with the guidance systems of the time. There's a reason everyone and their brother has or is developing a hypersonic anti ship missile.

sudosysgen 6y ago

This is incredibly optimistic. If their hypersonic missiles work properly they could theoretically gain control of the SCS decisively in the next 5 years, at a massive cost of course. This should be expected, military power is more or less a function of economic power, and as they rival the US in economic power they will also rival the US in military power in their own backyard. In a few decades, they could possibly outmatch the US outside the SCS as well.

nyokodo 6y ago
> In a few decades, they could possibly outmatch the US outside the SCS as well. China's has a number of very big problems they have to solve before they'll reach regional hegemony let alone global dominance. India is next-door, they have a massive demographic bomb coming because of the one child policy, and buying friends is unsustainable long-term, especially as those friends get wealthier too. This isn't to mention internal instability that massive concentration camps are unlikely to solve. We'll see what happens I suppose but one thing I do wish is all the best for the Chinese populace.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  India being next-door is not that big of an issue. The fixation on their demographic issue is quite ridiculous. Demographic problems are not problems in a vacuum. Demographic decline is only an issue insofar as it prevents economic growth. It turns out, the CPC is acutely aware of the issue, and considered it before putting the policy into place. The crucial fact is this one: Over 25% of the Chinese population is employed in agriculture. However, only 2% of the American population is employed in agriculture. This fact is the root cause of the demographic decline being planned and indeed wished for by the CPC. They, in effect, have a 20+% population surplus, that could be got rid of without a negative economic impact. Therefore, the Chinese economy is very unlikely to implode because of the upcoming demographic shock, as it will not negatively impact economic growth and will thus not lead to issues with either the retirement system (China already has one of the lowest retirement ages), nor with economic growth. This inscribes itself further in the process of proletarianization in which the Chinese economy is engaging in order to continue its development, as well as calculated so that the peak population will coincide with the carrying capacity of Chinese arable lands. The CCP are a lot of bad things, but they really aren't idiots. An issue that was not foreseen, however, is the gender imbalance that was created, but even that is not that bad of an issue - involuntary celibacy is significantly lower in China than, for example, the United States, and is actually one of the lowest in the world, but this is still a problem, especially for more long term relationships. People have been clamouring for the imminent fall of China for this or that, but objectively I don't see it happening.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    India being next door is a huge issue, you can't just handwave it away.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Not in the way GGP was implying. The fact that India is next to China will lead to neither the collapse of China, nor prevent it from projecting power in the South China Sea. The rise of India as a competitor to China will likely be on timescales even longer than 5-25 years. By then, circumstances will be significantly different. In any case, India is not a problem that will prevent the continued economic development nor the increased power projection ability of China.
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        Collapse is always a strong term, bordering on being a strawman. The fact is the SCS has too many benefactors to cede it to China. There are too many local nations that don't want that to happen in addition to the entire west. Even if China can win head to head against the US there is no way it can compete with that alliance, and there are no other potential allies that will tip the balance in China's favor. India has much to gain from joining such an alliance, if it were ever to come to that, they could finally resolve their border dispute and solidify it. They have already signed a military pact with the US last month. They matter.
        dirtyid 6y ago
        >no way it can compete with that alliance Without US, China can, trivially. China is 3x larger in population than all other SCS claimants together with 7x higher GDP. PLA Navy is building more tonnage in ships than the region combined. There's also the fact that they will never align with each other against China because they are simultaneously disputing against EACH OTHER, a fact that many people conveniently forget. USN is pretty much the only entity preventing full blown Chinese Munroe doctoring in SCS, and in many ways they've already been squeezed out. Everyone in the region is just leveraging the situation for better deals with China, i.e. Philippines and China are finally doing co-oil exploration in the region. >border dispute and solidify it This would be a huge win for China. A large reason China is pressing Ladakh so hard is because India is incapable of resolving border disputes with China who has ratified 12/14 land borders, while India has poor record settling border disputes. It's hard to cede land as a democratic leader, but Modi might pull it off. India ratifying Chinese borders would basically end Chinese fears of western theater and allow China to focus on east / Taiwan / SCS and maybe allow India to get it's shit together. And until they do, they don't substantially matter. India always matter as potential, on paper, but Indian democracy hasn't delivered, and IMO won't.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Reads like a summary of Disunited Nations's chapter on China haha.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> If their hypersonic missiles work properly they could theoretically gain control of the SCS decisively in the next 5 years, at a massive cost of course Live by the sword die by the sword. American vessels are vulnerable to hypersonic anti-ship missiles. So are Chinese. Firing on American boats on the South China Sea will turn the water into no man's land. Everyone will lose influence. Nobody will gain.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  This is a huge misreading of the situation Naval power is a means of force projection. You can control a sea without a single ship. The US is a naval power. The US cannot project power into the South China Sea without the use of Naval Power. China, however, can. Easily, in fact. Indeed, if you look at the J-20, you will notice that it is significantly larger than the F-22 and F-35. Why is that? In order to store very long range weaponry, and much higher amounts of fuel. This design aspect reflects the doctrine of sea control via air and missile power, not naval power. So, if for some reason there were no way to sail a vessel near the SCS, the China automatically, decisively, gains control thereof. Moreso, China and Russia are significantly ahead of the US in hypersonic flight technology.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > You can control a sea without a single ship Can. Mutual denial isn't control. (Seoul doesn't control the DMZ.) As you said, "naval power is a means of force projection." If China can't sail the South China Sea its options for projecting force e.g. across the Taiwan Strait are diminished. Their coastline will be safer from incursion. But offensive options will be constrained.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      I don't know why you would interpret what I wrote as mutual denial. It's not mutual denial, it is supremacy. The US requires naval power to project power into the South China Sea, China doesn't. Without naval power, China has almost uncontested control. US Military Doctrine cannot hope to control the SCS without naval control, Chinese military doctrine is built around that. Even with the US having access to advanced hypersonic missiles, China retains the option of an amphibious landing on Taiwan, for example. Indeed, hypersonic antiship missiles, for a great many reasons, only work very well against large, slow-maneuvering ships that are far away from their destination (and thus offer the attacker the option to choose when to launch), because of kinematic and targeting concerns far away from traditional targeting assets. Their offensive options are more than sufficient using purely air and missile power over the South China Sea. From then on, the ability to project power can be used to disable enemy missile launch options progressively, until the point at which supply lines can be reaffirmed.
dogma1138 6y ago
Hypersonic missiles have very poor terminal guidance it’s physics... all extra-atmospheric ballistic missiles are hypersonic and aren’t suitable for moving targets. Hypersonic missiles have one advantage over ballistic missiles and that is that their flight path is much lower making detection harder but it doesn’t makes it easier to hit. The US has experimented with hypersonic missiles in the 60’s and it became rather clear it wasn’t particularly worth it.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  > and it became rather clear it wasn’t particularly worth it. Wasn't worth it with the guidance systems of the time. There's a reason everyone and their brother has or is developing a hypersonic anti ship missile.