China is making a bet that no one will start a war to stop the island building

[Desertfalcon]

The incomprehensible thing for me, and I think for my country as a whole, is why would China risk all the progress she has made since the great reforms under Deng Xiaoping, all the good relationships she has built up with her trading partners, all the advances in income and a better life for her people.............over some silly sand-castle islands in the SCS?

It's incomprehensible to any sane person looking at it. Even if China thinks she can win a battle with the US Navy and our allies in the region, (Which she can't.), she will lose. Her trade, foreign investment, her standing in the world community, will all go up in smoke. China's internal politics has always been a riddle wrapped in an enigma but this obviously bad move by Chinese leaders who are usually known for being careful and deliberate, is very hard to understand.

 

[initial_d]

American carrier fleets carry with them Aegis BMD with rim-161 SM3. These systems can potentially withstand your DFs. Both sides will just have to bet, as you say, as to whose system will beat whose.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...killer-really-threat-the-us-navy-13765?page=2

Disagree. US can beat China, however it will suffer substantially in an open warfare, and even in case of war breaks out both sides won't invest everything at once, it will be controlled and China will suffer way more in diplomatic terms, since China is aggrevating all of its neighbours and US posses the upper hand.

Vietnam is on the Rise, and Philippines is just an American colony. Japan and Korea are regional powers, so is Indonesia (definately future regional power with great potential). If China manages to side with Indonesia, now that could be a game changer.

Indonesia will never take side with china or any other nation, i guarantee you that

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The incomprehensible thing for me, and I think for my country as a whole, is why would China risk all the progress she has made since the great reforms under Deng Xiaoping, all the good relationships she has built up with her trading partners, all the advances in income and a better life for her people.............over some silly sand-castle islands in the SCS?

It's incomprehensible to any sane person looking at it. Even if China thinks she can win a battle with the US Navy and our allies in the region, (Which she can't.), she will lose. Her trade, foreign investment, her standing in the world community, will all go up in smoke. China's internal politics has always been a riddle wrapped in an enigma but this obviously bad move by Chinese leaders who are usually known for being careful and deliberate, is very hard to understand.

Because we don't believe it's a big risk.

Why would Americans want to trade their aircraft carriers for our carrier killer ballistic missiles, over some islands in the South China Sea? Not even considering a nuclear war, since sinking an aircraft carrier and killing thousands of naval personnel is already equivalent in terms of damage to a tactical nuclear warhead, without even needing nukes.

We are betting big that nobody is going to start a war in order to stop us. And that bet is proving correct every day that passes.

If we lose the bet, and someone starts a war, then oh well. That's the nature of bets, you will lose something like half of the time. It's just a natural part of the process.

But I can't see it happening. Trading an expensive aircraft carrier with hundreds of aircraft and thousands of naval personnel, for a cheap mass produced carrier killer ballistic missile? That's the worst trade in the universe, nobody thinks America is going to make that trade.

I could of course be proved wrong, and "The Donald" is the one I'm banking on for that. Since of course, "The Donald" never ever backs down. He is a real poker player for sure, and he has an aggressive but successful strategy when he plays, which is to make a bet and then go all the way. No compromises, no backing down, ever.

 

[Desertfalcon]

We are betting big that nobody is going to start a war in order to stop us.

The fault in your logic is....that is not how wars usually start. They start, not over a few islands, but over the steady increase in tensions, in bad intelligence, in misreading and/or underestimating your opponent's resolve, in silly bravado. It will start when some Chinese navy officer, misreads some situation, and some Philippine officer or official, equally acts out of lack of Intel, or fear, or patriotism, and open, violent warfare breaks out. Or when some Chinese navy commander, opens fire on an unknown target that turns out to be a US Navy submarine or it will break out over a misreading of cable traffic.

I don't know how old you are, but it might do you well to read the history of the 'Cuban missile crisis' to get a better understanding of how these things can start. Not a bad Hollywood presentation of it, btw.

 

[Ceri]

Because we don't believe it's a big risk.

Why would Americans want to trade their aircraft carriers for our carrier killer ballistic missiles, over some islands in the South China Sea? Not even considering a nuclear war, since sinking an aircraft carrier and killing thousands of naval personnel is already equivalent in terms of damage to a tactical nuclear warhead, without even needing nukes.

We are betting big that nobody is going to start a war in order to stop us. And that bet is proving correct every day that passes.

If we lose the bet, and someone starts a war, then oh well. That's the nature of bets, you will lose something like half of the time. It's just a natural part of the process.

But I can't see it happening. Trading an expensive aircraft carrier with hundreds of aircraft and thousands of naval personnel, for a cheap mass produced carrier killer ballistic missile? That's the worst trade in the universe, nobody thinks America is going to make that trade.

I could of course be proved wrong, and "The Donald" is the one I'm banking on for that. Since of course, "The Donald" never ever backs down. He is a real poker player for sure, and he has an aggressive but successful strategy when he plays, which is to make a bet and then go all the way. No compromises, no backing down, ever.

So you are already dropping the "peaceful rise" card? From your posts it is pretty obvious that you don't even include that aspect in your calculations. The thing is you may rise militarily and build your sand islands in SCS, but you do it at the cost of losing neighbours. Or perhaps you think more long term, and are confident that it's all about garnering power, once you are sufficiently powerful these countries will have to befriend you, out of pure necessity?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The fault in your logic is....that is not how wars usually start. They start, not over a few islands, but over the steady increase in tensions, in bad intelligence, in misreading and/or underestimating your opponent's resolve, in silly bravado. It will start when some Chinese navy officer, misreads some situation, and some Philippine officer or official, equally acts out of lack of Intel, or fear, or patriotism, and open, violent warfare breaks out. Or when some Chinese navy commander, opens fire on an unknown target that turns out to be a US Navy submarine or it will break out over a misreading of cable traffic.

I don't know how old you are, but it might do you well to read the history of the 'Cuban missile crisis' to get a better understanding of how these things can start. Not a bad Hollywood presentation of it, btw.

I studied the Cuban Missile crisis a bit during my history lessons on the Cold War.

The point is that war never came. The threat of nuclear war was a good enough deterrent to prevent a direct war between two major powers.

And the case is the same today, there are no wars between major powers. None, zero, nada. And not just due to the nuclear threat, but simply because the overall costs are too high.

Nowadays (and for the past few decades) it's basically just big powers versus small countries. There is no conception of a major conflict breaking out among the large powers.

So our bet seems to be a good one. It is highly unlikely that anyone will attack us over the island building in the SCS, so in the end we gain islands with little to no risk of an actual war.

So you are already dropping the "peaceful rise" card?

We still believe in a peaceful rise.

The definition of peace is the absence of war. We are not fighting any wars, we have not fought any wars for the past three decades.

Wars are taking place all over the world, the entire West is fighting multiple wars in the Middle East as we speak. The entire Middle East and North Africa region is a river of blood.

The South China Sea on the other hand has zero fighting, zero bloodshed. There is tension, but not a drop of bloodshed. That's our strategy, to win without fighting (Sun Tzu).

We're not going to fire the first shot. And we're betting the other side isn't going to start a war either. Result? No war.

 

[William Hung]

As the topic says, China is making a bet: That no one is willing to start a war in order to stop the island building in the South China Sea.

Obviously, none of the actors in the region actually want to start a war. Even discounting nuclear weapons completely, platforms such as the DF-21D and the DF-26 (the world's very first carrier-killer ballistic missiles) can cause catastrophic damage by sinking only a single aircraft carrier. Added to that, nobody wants to take the economic hit, which will likely be very significant. But at the same time... all sides are willing to fight if they have to.

China is putting a bet on the table. That no one is willing to use force to stop the island building. And every day that passes, is another day in which our bet has been proven correct. The island building is moving ahead at full steam as we speak.

The irony is that any actor in the region can easily make China lose the bet. All they have to do is fire the first shot, i.e. open fire on us. In that case, China loses the bet, and gets dragged into a messy and expensive war, which we did not intend to fight.

In case firing the first shot is too extreme, the second option would be to forcibly stop the island building, for example by surrounding the artificial islands and refusing to let Chinese ships through.

The longer they wait, the stronger China's position becomes, as we continue adding islands to the SCS at a lightning pace. And eventually it will be too late, the bet will no longer be able to be called.

Conclusion:

Nobody likes making risky bets. However in the game of poker you do need to bet, if you don't make any bets you will simply be eaten up by the blinds and will be guaranteed to lose (albeit slowly).

China has made our bet. And every day that passes in which nobody has called our bet by using force to stop the island building, is another day in which our bet has been proved correct. It's now or never, if nobody calls our bet then we simply win by continuing to build as before. So, who wants to call the bet?

This is a typical Ah Q spiritual victory, desperately salvaging whatever reasons you can find to declare you are the victor to make yourself feel better.

Island building is just one tiny element in this SCS dispute, if you want to consider it as the ultimate victory to make yoursellf feel better, then by all means continue to do so and be satisfied with your spiritual victory.

Other people will know that the bigger picture for the US is to maintain its presence and influence in Asia. Back in 2009-10 when the US decided to refocus on Asia and publically declared its Asian pivot, was that aimed at the Chinese island building? No, China didn’t even build any islands until 2014. The motivation for the 2009 Asian pivot, the bigger scheme of things, was to maintain its presence and influence in the Asia region.

Ironically, what does the Chinese island building, militarization and aggression bring to the table? It brings hardly anything other than to give the US the pretext to increase its presence in Asia. More importantly, the US is not doing this coercively but is welcomed by many Asian countries, partially due to the percieved aggression from China. So looking from the bigger scheme of thing, the US is on the right course of enforcing its presence and influence in the Asia region and China is doing an excellent job of promoting that US presence.

And this is the second irony: many Chinese PDF members here keep crying about the US presence in Asia, identifying the US presence as some kind of root cause of all evils in Asia, obstacle to the Chinese rise, etc. some Chinese member even told me that the US presence was the root cause of the China-Japan nationalistic animosity. Well guess what? China’s recent aggressive antics in the SCS, including the island building and its militarization, only help the US to consolidate its presence in Asia, and they are welcomed by many countries, including their former enemy Vietnam as a check and balance against China. So why have you all suddenly forgotten about your complaints about the US presence in Asia? Well if you like to ignore it and use the island building as the ultimate victory for China, then go ahead and use that Ah Q spiritual victory to make you feel better.

 

[Desertfalcon]

The point is that war never came.

War never came....because cooler heads prevailed and the missiles were removed from Cuba.

But you are missing the bigger point; yes, in the Cuban crisis, war did not break out............but only by the smallest of margins. It could have very easily gone the other way.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Ironically, what does the Chinese island building, militarization and aggression bring to the table? It brings hardly anything other than to give the US the pretext to increase its presence in Asia. More importantly, the US is not doing this coercively but is welcomed by many Asian countries, partially due to the percieved aggression from China. So looking from the bigger scheme of thing, the US is on the right course of enforcing its presence and influence in the Asia region and China is doing an excellent job of promoting that US presence.

On the contrary, US presence in Asia is the perfect justification for our actions in the South China Sea.

The US as the "sole superpower" helps to maintain the stability of trade and oil routes, sacrificing their own blood/people/lives in the Middle East to ensure that. Which benefits us the most.

We sure as Hell aren't going to sacrifice our own blood in Iraq to keep the oil flowing. The global policeman can waste their own money and their own lives in trying to stabilize the Middle East, we are simply riding on that.

As well as using their presence as the perfect excuse to further our development and militarization of the South China Sea.

 

[Viet]

a risky bet with unpredictable outcome

When Germany invaded Poland, the Germans placed the bet that England and France would never dare to declare war on Germany.

When Japan attacked Vietnam annexing whole Indochina, the Japanese put a bet on the table the Americans would never risk their lives for the lives of other.

When the USSR placed nuke missiles on Cuba, they bet America would never risk a nuclear war. Until US president Kennedy issued an ultimatum: withdrawal soviet missiles within 48 hours or face an all out war.

We will see whether the chinese win with their bet.

 

[William Hung]

It is only a failed strategy if someone calls our bet, and opens fire on us.

Otherwise, it is a very good bet, because we get to keep building and militarizing the South China Sea with zero risk of war.

So you still rather focus on the issue of island building to maintain your spiritual victory. I’ve already talked about the bigger picture, the US goal and motive for the Asian pivot and involvment in the SCS. Was their ultimate goal and motive is to stop Chinese island building? No, as I’ve said, China wasnt even building any islands when the US initiated its Asian pivot in 2009. Let me remind you again, their goal was to enforce their presence in Asia. You guys have failed in preventing that.

But if you rather focus on the side issue of island building and militarization to build your Ah Q spiritual victory, then do carry on.

As for Vietnam and the Philippines, they are already isolated in ASEAN. Haven't you read the news, ASEAN has consistently failed to come out with a joint statement on the South China Sea against China. Because ASEAN is full of countries that are either favorable or neutral to us.

Again, you convieniently ignored the bigger picture, no Asian countries, except maybe NK and China, is asking the US to leave Asia. Even the neutral countries welcomed the US presence as a check and balance. US allies in the region continues to align with the US. In fact, the US has even gained a former enemy VN as a friend.

As for VN and the Philippines being isolated, you have refused to look at the bigger picture. Before 2009, both VN and the PH was on good terms with China, all three parties even talked about noint-exploration in the SCS. Then China’s antics pushed these two towards the US camp, PH is welcomimg US military presence. VN also openly welcomed US presence and actiins in the SCS.

Yet, you don’t see this as a failure on China’s part, you refuse to look at the bigger picture and just consider VN and Philippines “isolation” (whatever that mean) as a Chinese victory. This is a perfect example of Ah Q spiritual victory.

 

[Desertfalcon]

That you Chinese keep bringing up your great "victory" at Scarborough shoal (58 sq miles of uninhabited rocks), as if you won the Battle of Midway or something, is just psychologically.....weird. The Philippines sanely, didn't think it worth going to war over, and so didn't invoke our defence pact with them, because that's how sane, mature, countries act, but this constant bravado over the "great victory", is truly worth Freudian analysis.

It's exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about of how this sort of bravado, this kind of colossal misreading of your opponent, this engaging in the worst intelligence sin of all; believing one's own propaganda and dangerously underestimating your potential adversary. All those things, can easily cause the incident that can lead to a tragic war.

 

[sweetgrape]

a risky bet with unpredictable outcome

When Germany invaded Poland, the Germans placed the bet that England and France would never dare to declare war on Germany.

When Japan attacked Vietnam annexing whole Indochina, the Japanese put a bet on the table the Americans would never risk their lives for the lives of other.

When the USSR placed nuke missiles on Cuba, they bet America would never risk a nuclear war. Until US president Kennedy issued an ultimatum: withdrawal soviet missiles within 48 hours or face an all out war.

We will see whether the chinese win with their bet.

You first and second instance make laugh, oh, man, do you really know the history? god, what you country tell you?

As to the third instance, also a lame one,

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

That you Chinese keep bringing up your great "victory" at Scarborough shoal (58 sq miles of uninhabited rocks), as if you won the Battle of Midway or something, is just psychologically.....weird. The Philippines sanely, didn't think it worth going to war over, and so didn't invoke our defence pact with them, because that's how sane, mature, countries act, but this constant bravado over the "great victory", is truly worth Freudian analysis.

It's exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about of how this sort of bravado, this kind of colossal misreading of your opponent, this engaging in the worst intelligence sin of all; believing one's own propaganda and dangerously underestimating your potential adversary. All those things, can easily cause the incident that can lead to a tragic war.

Yet there is no war.

So apparently we have read our opponents correctly.

 

[xunzi]

I'm going to make myself very CLEAR in this power game. This is not about the little Vietnamese, or the little Pinoy. Not at all. It is ABOUT THE UNITED STATES of the WORLD. Everything we do is to fortify ourselves against the US aggression. We saw what happens in Middle east and we saw what they can do during the bombing of our embassy. We saw what they want in the Taiwan crisis. All signals lead to a future war. If we don't' fortify our position now, when war happens, we would lose. It is that simple. Now we fortify our position and continue to modernize our force, there is a good chance we will crack that US armor open. I REPEAT, there IS NO ONE in this world who can match or exceed the US industrial might in the war time period. We may be the ONLY one in history to do that. That is the confidence that we have in ourselves, when war comes, we will be ready to junk out war machine. Think of Nazi Germany x10. We will sink all US carriers and let see how fast they can build those carriers and send over to the Pacifics.