True for now but the Chinese navy is expanding at a rate not seen since the peak of the Cold War. If they sustain the effort for a couple decades then they'll be in a position to defeat the USA on the high seas.
Though building ships is an important prerequisite.
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.
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.
Would you mind providing a source for this? Not doubting you, just curious.
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.
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.
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.
Your second point doesn't make sense. If India would just ratify what China wanted there would be no conflict. India is not doing that because they don't agree. India would take advantage of allying with NATO, SCS bloc, so that they can force China to agree with their definition, not China's.
>Even if China can win head to head against the US there is no way it can compete with that alliance
I am alleging they cannot without USN, with specific reference that USN is the only thing keeping China from rolling over the region. Also why would NATO try to contain China? A in NATO is Atlantic, which Ocean is China on? There is a lot of unsubstantiated wank of random global coalition forming blocs to contain China, but very little evidence such a coalition will form apart from QUAD, especially regionally as China integrates more with ASEAN year after year.
The second point is India is bad actor when it comes to settling border disputes. If you evaluate Indian border settlement history with her neighbors. It's not isolated to China. India doesn't agree because it's difficult for democracies to settle borders which often requires compromise, but such compromises require ceding land. Ceding ANY land is political suicide, especially in democracy. India is simply incapable of being a good actor on border issues, as seen in her settlement history. Unlike CCP China, who has settled 12/14 inherited land disputes, majority with larger concessions, because an authoritarian government has enough control over people to cede land. Which brings back to India right now, China see's in Modi someone with sufficiently strong cult following and authoritarian power to get border ratifications done, because it's now or never.
No, I didn't.
> >Even if China can win head to head against the US there is no way it can compete with that alliance
Yes, that is, even if China can win 1v1 vs the US, it can't beat the alliance that the US is in.
Given your misunderstanding I see no reason to continue. All the best.
India, no matter how much help she gets, will never ever be able to resolve their border dispute forcefully. The best they will ever be able to do is to get a settlement between the two, but India's dysfunctional political system prevents her from doing what's in her best interests here.
In addition, if you're going to put India there, you're also going to have to add Pakistan, which considerably changes the balance of force.
India is simply not that big of a challenger. It is counterbalanced by Pakistan, and has swathes of internal problems, as well as a dysfunctional economy.
In case of Chinese aggression this is no longer true. China's economy is so large because of its status as an exporter. If countries stop importing it loses much of that status.
And again with leaving the US out - do you live in a world where the US doesn't exist?
> India is simply not that big of a challenger. It is counterbalanced by Pakistan, and has swathes of internal problems, as well as a dysfunctional economy.
"nation has problems, more at 11." Every nation has problems. So what?
India on its own isn't a 1 to 1 challenger. So what? Your point is irrelevant - India ISNT a 1 to 1 challenger. You rely too much on the strawman.
The Chinese economy is mostly domestic, relying about 15% on exports, and this is declining. Indeed, the Chinese economy is more inwards oriented than many countries in the alliance you're proposing.
I'm not saying that India is a 1 on 1 challenger. It's closer to an eight of China. I'm saying that the entire coalition you're proposing is simply not enough. It's biggest member, India, doesn't have some problems - it's comparatively bordering on dysfunctional.
Moreso, you're assuming that the alliance will somehow work perfectly together and that their interests are perfectly aligned, which is ridiculous. Every single member of that alliance except India and the US rely hugely on Chinese trade, and not only that but they all have conflicts with each other!
And so, for a good alliance to form, one must have a strong, near-peer figure. This could be either India, or the US. The US is very far away and, given recent technological developments, might not even be able to project a significant amount of power versus a Chinese missile interdiction of large surface ships combined with strong bombardment of Guam and, if necessary, Okinawa, as well as other bases.
Because the US is simply very far away, while China is in its backyard. The US needs to project power from thousands and thousands of kilometers away and maintain supply lines with lead times in the weeks, while China can literally operate fully out of their mainland using a few other bases for auxiliary capacities.
So you have an alliance that falls short to begin with, but not only does it fall short; it's a very imperfect alliance with many of the members in severe conflict with each other but also economically dependent on the enemy.
All of this, while the US economy is getting more and more stagnant and while severe problems with its political structure are evolving, with seemingly no interest from the ruling class to actually solve them.
Yeah, no. Beating China in their own backyard at a time where they will be close to the global #1 economy is a pipe dream.
I’m curious, do you have a source for that?
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.
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.
I'm not bigging it up.
Very nice of them to build that.
If US bases are disabled by overwhelming missile attacks, and hypersonic missiles successfully interdict the US Navy, it's only a matter of time before Chinese air superiority over them makes them completely useless and barren.
Remember, the US is a fundamentally naval power. The US simply cannot project power outside of the Northern Atlantic without it's naval capabilities.
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.
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.
I understand your point better now. Thank you.
> Without naval power, China has almost uncontested control
The United States has bases in the region. Large bases. They're not configured to pack a strike group's firepower. But there's no reason they couldn't be.
> hypersonic antiship missiles, for a great many reasons, only work very well against large, slow-maneuvering ships
Large, slow, surface ships will go the way of the battleship when hypersonic anti-ship missile technology matures. (Unless missile defense does something unexpected.) That doesn't mean other modes haven't been discussed. (Swarms being the concept du jour.)
> offensive options are more than sufficient using purely air and missile power over the South China Sea
Planes and missiles don't hold territory. Denying large Chinese ships their coast significant curtails their force projection capability onto their neighbors.
Now, while it's very true that the US has many bases in SCS, they are completely untenable without naval power. Indeed, US bases are fundamentally cut off from US productive capabilities. In a serious war, the US won't be able to hold Guam if they cannot maintain naval control - Guam will be targeted by a large barrage of missiles, and will then be interdicted in the way we discussed earlier
Really, only Okinawa is left as a base, and China vs Okinawa is a win for China.
The truth is, the US is fundamentally a naval power. The reason why the US, like Britain before, has so many bases all around the world is because it can maintain naval dominance. Without naval dominance, US ground bases lose significant power - its still possible to supply then via air, but how do you maintain air supremacy after a missile barrage without naval dominance
This is evident from the makeup of the PLAAF and PLARF. If you look at most Chinese platforms, you can notice the emphasis on range. Indeed, the Chinese military trains to disable Guam without any naval usage, and without the use of tankers.
The US, on the flipside, cannot supply Guam sustainably without the use of naval power.
I think that we were living the past 40 years in a kind of military anomaly, where the US basically didn't have to care about overextending its supply lines, and the basis of that is unpredecented total naval domination. Without that, the world completely changes, and the advantage of any given theather being close to your mainland increases significantly.
Now, of course, while I think China would be able to achieve its strategic objectives, the US is going to inflict incredible amounts of damage before that could be possible, which is why, unless somehow the conflict is forced, I don't think they will attempt this until much more than five years.
IIRC China is in the process of launching a large number of SAR smallsats. Making it very hard to hide a carrier battle group.
China also just released video of Jilin-1 tracking planes in Atlanta airport. It's part of Gaofen group for commercial use (Yaogan explicitly military) , so they're trolling civil-military fusion capabilities. China moves fast, maybe they couldn't find a USN carrier reliably 5 years ago, but they should now.
https://twitter.com/HenriKenhmann/status/1325377922228629507
There's also... 10s thousands of Chinese commercial ships in SCS.
If other militaries don't have similar issues, could they snuff american boats through simple unforced errors on the part of the Americans? They're crashing boats into stuff in peacetime, how will things go in their first real war in 80 years?
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.
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.