Why China’s Navy is a Threat

[taskforceiron]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

You haven't really studied the Sino-Soviet conflicts in the far east over the years or the geography of the region, have you?

TR

Haven't those two become tight again with both being in the SCO?

[akv]

Originally Posted by TR

You haven't really studied the Sino-Soviet conflicts in the far east over the years or the geography of the region, have you?

TR,

Sir, I have read of border clashes between the Chinese and Soviets in the 60's, and a great deal on the Mongols. I would defer to your expertise in the matter but from my layman's readings the distances, terrain, and logistics chain would make full scale conflict difficult, which is why I specified difficult, not impossible. I also read about the difficulties incurred by both side during Himalayan conflict in the Sino-Indo War clash of 1963.

FWIW below is a STRATFOR excerpt on China I found of interest.

China's geography is roughly divided into two parts: a mountainous, arid western part and a coastal plain that becomes hilly at its westward end. The overwhelming majority of China's population is concentrated in that coastal plain. The majority of China's territory-the area west of this coastal plain-is lightly inhabited, however. This eastern region is the Chinese heartland that must be defended at all cost.

China as island is surrounded by impassable barriers-barriers that are difficult to pass or areas that essentially are wastelands with minimal population. To the east is the Pacific Ocean. To the north and northwest are the Siberian and Mongolian regions, sparsely populated and difficult to move through. To the south, there are the hills, mountains and jungles that separate China from Southeast Asia; to visualize this terrain, just remember the incredible effort that went into building the Burma Road during World War II. To the southwest lie the Himalayas. In the northwest are Kazakhstan and the vast steppes of Central Asia. Only in the far northeast, with the Russian maritime provinces and the Yalu River separating China from Korea, are there traversable points of contacts. But the balance of military power is heavily in China's favor at these points.

Strategically, China has two problems, both pivoting around the question of defending the coastal region. First, China must prevent attacks from the sea. This is what the Japanese did in the 1930s, first invading Manchuria in the northeast and then moving south into the heart of China. It is also what the British and other European powers did on a lesser scale in the 19th century. China's defense against such attacks is size and population. It draws invaders in and then wears them out, with China suffering massive casualties and economic losses in the process.

The second threat to China comes from powers moving in through the underpopulated portion of the west, establishing bases and moving east, or coming out of the underpopulated regions around China and invading. This is what happened during the Mongol invasion from the northwest. But that invasion was aided by tremendous Chinese disunity, as were the European and Japanese incursions.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by akv

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Germans?

This would explain the FeldGrau...

All that's missing in your pic would be a propeller!...............

Big Teddy

[akv]

Originally Posted by GreenberetTFS

All that's missing in your pic would be a propeller!...............

Yes Sir, though I don't think they will ever declare " War on Sparrows" again, even with flying prop suits.


http://fatfinch.wordpress.com/2008/0...-sparrow-wars/

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by akv

Yes Sir, though I don't think they will ever declare " War on Sparrows" again, even with flying prop suits.


http://fatfinch.wordpress.com/2008/0...-sparrow-wars/

Now you see what a true leader knows where his priority's lie!...........

Big Teddy

[incarcerated]

Originally Posted by taskforceiron

It requires a navy for them to transport their troops to preposition themselves for any military operation that would be directed against our interests anywhere other than Asia. They lack power projection outside their own immediate territory.

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

What is the quality of their army though? Also the logistics required to feed, cloth, equip, etc...such an army?

Don’t allow the photographs of uniformed cadre to lead you into thinking about China’s conventional military threat. The Chinese are not going to produce a conventional military confrontation in the Western Hemisphere any time soon. They have said as much:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...99/unresw1.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/...ne/unresw1.htm

http://www.elequity.com/public/TJH/w...fare-china.pdf

Think smaller.
In order for China to project power and influence in North America, it only requires a merchant marine, which they have in spades.

[Pete]

While U.S. is distracted, China develops sea power

By Robert D. Kaplan
Sunday, September 26, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092404767.html

".............America's preoccupation with the Middle East suits China perfectly. We are paying in blood and treasure to stabilize Afghanistan while China is building transport and pipeline networks throughout Central Asia that will ultimately reach Kabul and the trillion dollars' worth of minerals lying underground. Whereas Americans ask how can we escape Afghanistan, the Chinese, who are already prospecting for copper there, ask: How can we stay? Our military mission in Afghanistan diverts us from properly reacting to the Chinese naval challenge in East Asia. .............."

[taskforceiron]

Originally Posted by Pete

While U.S. is distracted, China develops sea power

By Robert D. Kaplan
Sunday, September 26, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092404767.html

".............America's preoccupation with the Middle East suits China perfectly. We are paying in blood and treasure to stabilize Afghanistan while China is building transport and pipeline networks throughout Central Asia that will ultimately reach Kabul and the trillion dollars' worth of minerals lying underground. Whereas Americans ask how can we escape Afghanistan, the Chinese, who are already prospecting for copper there, ask: How can we stay? Our military mission in Afghanistan diverts us from properly reacting to the Chinese naval challenge in East Asia. .............."

We will claim those minerals before China ever thinks about it. This article is worst case scenario.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by taskforceiron

We will claim those minerals before China ever thinks about it. This article is worst case scenario.

You need to do some research before making blanket statements like that.

The Chinese already have mineral rights and clearance to build pipelines and transportation infrastructure.

And AFAIK, we are not doing a thing about it.

TR

[taskforceiron]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

You need to do some research before making blanket statements like that.

The Chinese already have mineral rights and clearance to build pipelines and transportation infrastructure.

And AFAIK, we are not doing a thing about it.

TR

How did they get those rights?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by taskforceiron

How did they get those rights?

They paid off the right people and signed a contract with the government. The same way the oil rights in Iraq were obtained.

The MSM reported on the contracts.

How do you think they got them?

TR

[taskforceiron]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

They paid off the right people and signed a contract with the government. The same way the oil rights in Iraq were obtained.

The MSM reported on the contracts.

How do you think they got them?

TR

Heck, in this day and age you never know. This is the first I have heard about this.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by taskforceiron

We will claim those minerals before China ever thinks about it. This article is worst case scenario.

Those deposits aren't ore-grade to us, it's just dirt.
It might be ore to China.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/we...0Plenty&st=cse

Because it takes up to 20 years for a mine to start earning profits and Afghanistan has been a battleground for 31 years, “no mining company in its right mind would go into Afghanistan now,” said Murray W. Hitzman, a professor of economic geology at the Colorado School of Mines.

<snip>

Compared with those countries, Afghanistan is at disadvantage, mining experts said. Even for $1 trillion, its riches may not be worth digging up.

Compared with oil drilling, minerals mining is extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming. As everyone from Jed Clampett to BP has discovered, a bubblin’ crude can emerge under its own pressure as soon as the earth’s surface is pricked.

Diamond mining is also comparatively cheap — diamonds are formed in pipes of softer kimberlite pushed up by volcanoes and usually mined in open pits or dug out of the beds of rivers that washed the volcanoes away. After that, they are simply sorted out of the gravel.

But gold, silver, copper and other minerals are usually locked in ore that must be tunneled down to, blasted out by the ton, carried to the surface, and ground into powder for processing. Digging the shafts and building elevators, processing plants, railroads and tarmac roads “can cost hundreds of millions to billions for a single mining operation,” said Roderick Eggert, director of the economics division at the Colorado School of Mines. “Even a small gold mine is $100 million.”

And while an oil well can go from discovery to production in two or three years, “it would take 5 to 15 years to go from where most of Afghanistan is now to an operating mine,” he said.

After that, added his colleague Dr. Hitzman, “even with a good mine, it takes 5 to 10 years to recoup your investment. What’s Afghanistan going to be like in five years?”

Also, someone must provide security, and 20 years of security by the United States military would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

England, Holland, Spain, Portugal and Japan all discovered that the costs of policing empires outweighed the financial gains and that it was more practical to let private companies shoulder the risks. Mineral prices fluctuate wildly, and $1 trillion today may soon be much less. Gold broke the $1,000-an-ounce barrier for the first time last year. But it had hit $873 in 1980 — the equivalent of $2,300 today — and then languished under $500 for years.

Not worth it.

FWIW, Dr. Eggert predicted the current US/China trade relationship back in the early '90s.

[Angry Mike]

Interesting article I came across in my research on UW stuff.

What will this administration do? How will the next administration react to the fall out and conduct itself??

Scary prospect.

Thoughts?

http://www.fpri.org/orbis/5401/kraska.navalwar2015.pdf

MT

[GratefulCitizen]

Concerning critical minerals.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12034