Chinese Cruise missiles vs. US Pacific Fleet

[Meanderer]

I think the concept of area denial has been primarily addressed here as a tactical issue. It has a strategic role.

Having a horrendous number of surface to surface missiles along the shore means the carrier task force won't want to hang around that close to shore - particularly if tensions run high.

Sure, aircraft can cover this range and engage surface targets if needed - and can attack aggressively if their carrier is safely out of range. But if the first thing the US does is pull its carrier back, it reaffirms the Chinese claim to possessing that ocean. The longer range missiles they have, the greater they can claim sovereignty over their surrounding ocean.

And if the US chooses to keep its carriers out of effective weapons range at all times then China will have already come out a winner of sorts as it would appear that the US is reluctant to challenge them.

Ultimately, this isn't about war with the USA which would be strategically devastating (the cost to their economy alone would be prohibitive). It is about showing an ability to control their area of influence and to strengthen their claims on natural resources. If the choices for the US are:

1. take a stand militarily against China over its seizure of natural resources in the South China Sea and support Philippines/Indonesia/Vietnam in their claims to those resources - with resulting damage to oil rigs and disruption in the flow of oil. or
2. Try to find a diplomatic solution that leaves China control over those resources while forcing some short-term compensation to their neighbors - maintaining the flow of oil

I'm thinking the USA would ultimately favor option #2, using the negotiated compensation package as a way for everyone to give China what they want and save face. The US economy doesn't depend on who the oil is bought from, but only that the oil is supplied and at what price.

 

[Rick]

A carrier task force will not be anywhere near China. The 'leak' about missile saturation was probably to boost China's political reputation in Asian markets and would have had exactly nothing to do with military capabilities.

The truth is that the US can and will do nothing to interfere with China exerting political influence over Asia (militarily it would be a case for the UN, which might lead to a US abstention) until the US has recovered most of the 1.2$ trillion in US debt that China owns. To move against China before it is recovered would be economic suicide.

 

[Meanderer]

The truth is that the US can and will do nothing to interfere with China exerting political influence over Asia (militarily it would be a case for the UN, which might lead to a US abstention) until the US has recovered most of the 1.2$ trillion in US debt that China owns. To move against China before it is recovered would be economic suicide.

There is a fair amount of financial risk with such holdings. The US used threats of dumping its UK bond holdings at a time the UK was in need of further credit to force the UK to pull out of Egypt in 1956. At the very least such a move would have driven up the UK's cost of borrowing. At worst it would have prevented them from being able to borrow the funds they needed.

If much of the debt is callable (can require repayment on demand) they might also be able to force a US default. It would hurt China's finances too, but China is less accountable to its people.

 

[sideranautae]

The truth is that the US can and will do nothing to interfere with China exerting political influence over Asia (militarily it would be a case for the UN, which might lead to a US abstention) until the US has recovered most of the 1.2$ trillion in US debt that China owns. To move against China before it is recovered would be economic suicide.

China is now bound to the hip of the US. If the US consumer can no longer buy Chinese products, China goes down econ wise and the country goes back to revolution. Chinese leaders know this fact. (and so does every foreigner who runs businesses in China) So, neither side is willing to go to war. Is the US goes under, China is history. At least for the current leadership there.