A Conventional War Between the USA and China

[Syllabus]

Given that China and the Philippines are in a stand-off over Scarborough Shoal, I thought it would be interesting to discuss what would happen if negotiations ever failed and a full military conflict were ever to occur.

Now, as much as I love my country, the Philippines wouldn't stand a chance against China if the two came to blows. The tropical country's trump card that allows it to stubbornly defy the Middle Kingdom's claims is that the USA will supposedly come to its assistance in case of war. Whether it actually will remains a matter of debate, but let's assume that the United States does go against China. Who would emerge victorious?

For the purposes of discussion, neither nation will deploy nuclear weapons of any kind, strategic or tactical, because of intense international pressure, as well as it being strongly opposed by the citizens of both countries. How would the war go? What would China's first moves be in the conflict, and how would America respond?

Naturally, in a conflict of this scale, both sides will have other nations coming to the aid of one or the other. Who would side with whom, and how would they contribute to the war effort?

To start the discussion, once the conflict erupts, China will probably annex the Philippines, and start to more forcefully enforce its territorial claims over other countries it perceives to belong to its domain such as Taiwan and maybe Singapore. America, and possibly other nations in the UN will send a coalition of task force to attempt to liberate these countries. If they are successful, they might try to invade China itself to effect a regime change. So basically, a Pacific "Gulf War" where the most important pieces will be the navy fleets and their aircraft carriers.

China might be joined in the fight by other countries in the region who would stand to gain from a Chinese victory such as Cambodia and Vietnam although I'm just guessing at this point.

Your thoughts?

 

[Austupaio]

Nothing would happen. There's nothing for us to fight over, an invasion of either countries home soil would be suicide for the invader.

It'll be the same Cold War style 'make the little countries fight for us' bull**** we always do.

 

[Jhessail]

Wrong forum. Since this is a hypotethical what-if scenario, it should go to Off-Topic.

Vietnam and China are not allies. Singapore and China are not enemies. China does not have the amphibious capability to even invade Taiwan, so invasion of Philippines is a fantasy.

 

[Goker]

Wrong forum. Since this is a hypotethical what-if scenario, it should go to Off-Topic.

Indeed, moved.

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

Not going to happen, sorry.

For one thing, the world today is in such a state that war between two superpowers would bring much less gain even to the winner compared to what they would have had they maintained peaceful trade relations. A war between a minor and a power, sure, if the power can cite a sufficiently justifiable casus belli to draw the international community on their side. But between two powers, not going to happen.

For the other even if there were a war, it's hardly the case when it would boil down to a total war for annexation any more, not even close. Especially between two established powers, where both would realize that it is technically and practically impossible to achieve total victory over the other. The worst outcome in a conventional war of that sort would be an acknowledgment of defeat and then maybe, maybe the withdrawal of the defeated power's interest in the conflict zone.

That, and the world has had quite enough of expansionistic war and will no doubt take extremely harsh punitive measures if China so much as try anything outside generally accepted international relations. The last thing China needs at this point is a total export embargo, which is going to utterly strangle its economy from within. And the Chinese leadership knows this. Too much to risk over too small gains.

TL;DR: Not going to happen.

Another TL;DR: What Jhess said.

I'd expound a little more on the relationship between Vietnam and China to clarify: Not exactly allies, but for most intents and purposes cooperative partners. Though the same could be said between Vietnam and the United States, Australia, the EU and pretty much every other power at this stage.

 

[Austupaio]

They covered the diplomacy but I'll elaborate a bit more on the insane logistics of the whole thing.

This specifically.

If they are successful, they might try to invade China itself to effect a regime change.

An invasion of mainland China would be absolutely immense undertaking, anything crossing the mountain ranges into China would be met with extreme resistance.

Air sorties from the anywhere but directly East from the shore would under heavy anti-aircraft at pretty much any point and would have to fly through that for some time to reach a meaningful target. I wouldn't doubt that China is capable of fielding large scale anti-air batteries along most of the Western and Northern borders. The villages, farms, cities and even mountains and forests mean that those batteries would be well concealed and protected as well.
Air sorties from the East, over the shoreline, would require use of bases in South Korea*, Japan and carriers in the water which would be very busy with the navy and, while they would have a shorter distance to cross to reach targets, the port cities along the shoreline will also have pretty intense anti-air capabilities.

Any land or amphibious invasion would be hard fought, China meets all of competitors in pure man power and well beyond, gone also are the days where every other Chinese soldier is a farmer with a smoothbore, that's hundreds of AKs for every troop or piece of armour any UN/American force could land.

Naval engagement I'm not too sure about, I'm not exactly up to date on what China is capable of naval-ly but I imagine that they're able to keep any force busy for some time, long enough to make it an nonviable option for amphibious landings.

*South Korea would probably be crushed by Chinese/North Korean mechanized infantry and there's very little any one could do about that.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

The Chinese navy would be smashed, the U.S has by far the most powerful navy in the world. It'd be a naval war for sure, and it won't happen due to linked economies.

 

[Almalexia]

The Chinese navy would be smashed, the U.S has by far the most powerful navy in the world. It'd be a naval war for sure, and it won't happen due to linked economies.

Got a point with that naval war part, yeah. China can't do **** when its navy is gone. Only move I could see them pulling then is invading South Korea.

 

[Lord Burgess1]

Because Chinese land based aircraft can't fly over the sea, right I forgot that.

 

[Almalexia]

Because the US doesn't have air bases all over Japan and South Korea, and the largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world. Don't play that game with me.

 

[Syllabus]

Well, it's a load off my mind at least that, economically and diplomatically, China isn't going to war with the Philippines anytime soon since I live in the archipelago. 

Continuing with the hypothetical scenario though, I read that America's ability to project force over a large distance is unparalleled in the world. It would probably be sorely tested because the battlefield is literally on the other side of the planet, but how do their military forces measure up against their counterparts?

 

[Haresus]

The USA has a much higher military spending, I would probably place my bet on them in any small skirmish, whether it is on land, air or sea does not matter that much. In a bigger conflict the Chinese have numbers, and from some quick looks at wikipedia, the Abrams tank is three times more expensive than the Chinese type 99 MBT (Sure, the Abrams is probably better, but I doubt it can blow up 3 Chinese MBT together)... The US could probably get a blockade up on China, though, and that is going to have effects everywhere.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

.. Like America.


In fact, there's a chance the U.S would benefit economically from a war with China like they did with Brirain in the war of 1812, where the U.S's manufacturing industry exploded.

 

[arbites_augmented]

America's economy/political grounds would probably collapse from the strain. America (And its allies) struggle enough with just trying to fight an occupation war in Afghanistan, taking on a superpower would be suicide.

 

[Jhessail]

Total war against China, as unlikely as it would be, would still be a completely different ballgame from a "minor" occupation like Afghanistan. Remember that US Army kept up with most of it's other duties around the world while battling Saddam Hussein's regime and the Taliban. In the short term it would probably be a boon because the domestic manufacturing sector would, indeed, again explode with growth - you can't really outsource that stuff.

the Abrams tank is three times more expensive than the Chinese type 99 MBT (Sure, the Abrams is probably better, but I doubt it can blow up 3 Chinese MBT together

Hohoho, yes it would. In the Gulf War of '91, reliable reports showed evidence that APFSDS rounds from M1A1's penetrated a 1-2 meters of sand, packed tight in front of an export model T-72 AND still went straight through it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator
IIRC, not a single Abrams was lost to enemy action in the Gulf war. Those were M1 and M1A1 models, Yanks have upgraded their tanks since then.

Add to that the IVIS system in use in American mechanized units and you have an armoured force that can out-gun, out-survive and out-manouvre pretty much every other armoured force in the world. Unless the War on Terror has significantly reduced their training times, American tank crews are still the best trained tankers in the world. Back when I used to do that ****, we could only dream of having the facilities, time and money to sink into training that the Yanks did. But then again, superior technology and training were the only two ways to counter the armoured hordes of the Warsaw Pact. So if you just go tank-to-tank between USA and PRC, the winner is clear.

Much more uncertain is the result of the air war. PRC has the largest air force in the world and is also aggressively upgrading it (has been for the last 15 years). While they definitely aren't up-to-par with USAF yet, they aren't lagging behind anywhere near as much as the Iraqi air force was, back in 1990/91. And while technology and training are even more imporant in the air than on the ground, the fact that the PLAAF can withstand losses far longer than USAF means that the Americans would need to cause very, very lopsided casualty ratios to emerge as winners - and even if they would win, they would still have to deal wit the numerous AA layers that the PRC has. Bombing strategic targets? Easy job. Supporting land forces in close combat? Much more difficult. Remember, the Iraqi AA in the Gulf War was a joke and the Serbian AA in the Kosovo war, being much better equipped, organized and trained, caused NATO no end of headaches.

Naval side is easier. While PLAN is growing and modernizing, the USN should be able to sink them in fairly short order. I don't doubt that USN has an attack sub following each PLAN sub at all times and that's the only part of PLAN that could present a credible threat to the USN - aside from the ballistic Surface-to-Sea missiles, which are not 100% reliable yet and against which the USN is already creating counter-measures.

South Korea would probably be crushed by Chinese/North Korean mechanized infantry and there's very little any one could do about that.

Please, don't remain trapped in 1950. Modern ROK army is more than a match for the North-Koreans. Seoul would burn, no doubt but they wouldn't be overrunning South, even with Chinese help, any time soon. And PRC has a heck of a long coast line to defend. Even though logic says that putting a MEU ashore in mainland China is madness, would the PRC leadership be willing to take that risk? And if there was no land war anywhere else, US and her allies could easily support ROK enough to turn the tide. ****ty luck for the Koreans though.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

Meanwhile, Japan would produce 20% less ****ty anime.

 

[Almalexia]

But my Hentai! D: 

 

[Syllabus]

I thought wars were good for a country's economy seeing as how as how industry gets ramped up to 11? This is assuming that the factories don't get bombed to hell and back though.

Isn't that why America emerged as a superpower at the end of world war 2?

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

The arms trade did not enrich the United States in and of itself in WW2. The States became wealthy owing to a combination of issues working in tandem:

- Its mainland saw little devastation (as in almost none) and industry is free to be developed as much as the war effort and arms export required.
- Its allies were buying arms left and right. As the war excavated, their demand increased.
- It has a large mineral and industrial capacity that can be levied into the arms industry as needed.

Of which the second is the most important factor: Without trade, arms production gets nowhere, as with all other products. This naturally cannot happen if the United States is one of the major belligerents, since (i) nobody else is buying, and (ii) the army needs that much equipment for its own use.

The bottom line is, war alone did not enrich the States. Trading arms and capitalizing on other peoples' war did. It's easy to confuse the two, though.

But my Hentai! D: 

*sets TDM on fire.*

 

[Tuckles]

It's called a war economy and AFAIK it has too many negative effects to keep it up for a long while.

Also, the Philippines would obviously win in an all-out war against China. The OFWs would rise up and kill their Chinese employers, destroying both the government and the budding Chinese bourgeoisie.

Meanwhile, Japan would produce 20% less ****ty anime.

I don't see this happening. :c