A US civil war

Awakening eras, crisis eras, crisis wars, generational financial crashes, as applied to historical and current events
Reality Check
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:07 pm

Re: A US civil war

Post by Reality Check »

thomasglee wrote: the Chinese may start requiring we inform them prior to execution, any activities we plan to conduct in the SCS.
The Chinese have already made it very clear they do require it. The rest of the world simply ignores it.

China will have to commit an act of war on an international body of water to enforce that requirement.

So far, in regard to the United States, they have been unwilling to do that.

Reality Check
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:07 pm

Re: A US civil war

Post by Reality Check »

thomasglee wrote: if you'll recall, a few years ago one of our "spy" planes was forced to land on Hainan Island when the Chinese intercepted it over the South China Sea.
That is not fully correct. Military to military Intercepts take place all the time. What was unusual in this case is the Chinese pilot made an error and killed himself by colliding with a mufti-engine U.S. plane. The U.S. plane elected to make an emergency landing, against orders, and without the permission of China , on Chinese territory.

Reality Check
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:07 pm

Re: A US civil war

Post by Reality Check »

thomasglee wrote: The Chinese The Yingji-83 or YJ-83 (Chinese: 鹰击-83, literally "Eagle Strike"; NATO reporting name: CSS-N- ) is a Chinese anti-ship missile based on the YJ-82, designed as a supersonic successor to the subsonic YJ-82 missile. The export designation is C-803. (LINK) - for more information on the varieties of supersonic anti-ship missiles the Chinese have, just Google "Chinese supersonic anti-ship missiles" and you'll find all kinds of information from Janes and others.
I understand your point, and I understand there are even more advanced Chinese missiles both deployed in development. The environment in the South China Sea is dangerous for blue water Navies. That includes the Chinese Blue Water Navy - which would need to continuously operate in the entire South China Sea if China elected to Occupy the Philippines. My point was I do not believe China would elect such a risky military operation as their first military adventure - when much less risky options such as occupying Taiwan or joining North Korea in invading and occupying South Korea exist.

Reality Check
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:07 pm

Re: A US civil war

Post by Reality Check »

Reality Check wrote:
thomasglee wrote: The Chinese The Yingji-83 or YJ-83 (Chinese: 鹰击-83, literally "Eagle Strike"; NATO reporting name: CSS-N- ) is a Chinese anti-ship missile based on the YJ-82, designed as a supersonic successor to the subsonic YJ-82 missile. The export designation is C-803. (LINK) - for more information on the varieties of supersonic anti-ship missiles the Chinese have, just Google "Chinese supersonic anti-ship missiles" and you'll find all kinds of information from Janes and others.
I understand your point, and I understand there are even more advanced Chinese anti-ship missiles both deployed and in development. The environment in the South China Sea is dangerous for blue water Navies. That includes the Chinese Blue Water Navy - which would need to continuously operate in the entire South China Sea if China elected to Occupy the Philippines. My point was I do not believe China would elect such a risky military operation as their first military adventure - when much less risky options such as occupying Taiwan or joining North Korea in invading and occupying South Korea exist.

Even occupying Korea by China would not require Chinese supremacy at sea to be a success. China could resupply it's occupation troops in Korea by land.
Last edited by Reality Check on Thu May 24, 2012 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Reality Check
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:07 pm

Re: A US civil war

Post by Reality Check »

thomasglee wrote:Review the naval battles of the Falklands,
The Falkland Islands demonstrated that if you occupy an Island nation with ground troops you have be able to re-supply them and protect them with ships.

Argentina had two types of ships when the decisive battle of the Falklands started - those Argentine ships at the bottom of the Ocean and those that were hiding, far away from the battle in a mainland port.

British ships were there to support the British ground troops landing on the Falklands. Argentine troops on the Island were abandoned by their country and had no hope of winning.

thomasglee
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:07 pm
Location: Texas

Re: A US civil war

Post by thomasglee »

Reality Check wrote:
thomasglee wrote:Review the naval battles of the Falklands,
The Falkland Islands demonstrated that if you occupy an Island nation with ground troops you have be able to re-supply them and protect them with ships.

Argentina had two types of ships when the decisive battle of the Falklands started - those Argentine ships at the bottom of the Ocean and those that were hiding, far away from the battle in a mainland port.

British ships were there to support the British ground troops landing on the Falklands. Argentine troops were abandoned by their country and had no hope of winning.
yet how many British ships were sunk by Argentine Exocet missiles? That's the point you've totally overlooked. The Exocet sank two British ships and damaged a third. Anyway, my point is being missed. That's fine. Nice chat though. Have a great day and weekend. I'm off to Korea tomorrow.
Psalm 34:4 - “I sought the Lord, and he answered me and delivered me from all my fears.”

Reality Check
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:07 pm

Re: A US civil war

Post by Reality Check »

thomasglee wrote:yet how many British ships were sunk by Argentine Exocet missiles? That's the point you've totally overlooked. The Exocet sank two British ships and damaged a third. Anyway, my point is being missed. That's fine. Nice chat though. Have a great day and weekend. I'm off to Korea tomorrow.
There is a bigger point that is more relevant to China invading and occupying the Philippines. What percentage of the ships Argentine sent to the Falklands to support Argentine troops were sunk or captured or fled the field of battle ( before the decisive battle ). The answer is 100%.

The question is not just can China kill ships in the South China Sea. The question also is can any Chinese Ships Survive in the SEAS around the Philippines in a war over the Philippines.

If China can not support it's occupying troops then China loses. Even a tie at Sea with all Chinese ships prevented from operating near the Phillipines and China loses. That is why invading the Philippines is the least likely first military adventure by China.

Reality Check
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:07 pm

Re: A US civil war

Post by Reality Check »

thomasglee wrote: I'm off to Korea tomorrow.
Have a good trip and God speed. I believe Korea is still an unaccompanied tour and I am sure we both know why. There is still a war going on over there.

Reality Check
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:07 pm

Re: A US civil war

Post by Reality Check »

Trevor wrote:Problem is, they may decide that we do not have the will to do anything if they decide to invade, whether their target is Taiwan, the Philippines, or somebody else. If war broke out today, we could win, although it'd be more difficult than many suspect. A few years from now, though, it may be a different story.
One could only hope the Chinese are ignorant enough to try to occupy the Philippines rather than Taiwan.

I do not believe we can count on it though.

Trevor
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:43 am

Re: A US civil war

Post by Trevor »

The Philippines don't have a very strong military, so they'd be able to succeed if we didn't do anything about it. What will make things more difficult than they think it would is their inexperience in external wars.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 121 guests