WW3 What If Scenario: China/N.Korea vs US/Japan/S.Korea

[AndroAsc]

With the dispute between China vs Japan over those bunch of inhabited islands (of course for the natural resources, naturally ), I came up with a hypothetical scenario.

Ok sure, US-China-Japan have intricately linked economies, unlikely to go to war, blah... blah...

But let's just assume that Japan and China did go to war, and the US gets dragged into it. In all likelihood it is going to draw in the Koreans as well, so we have: China/N.Korea vs US/Japan/S.Korea. To those military gurus out there, what happens then? Can US and their allies win a non-nuclear military war against China?

Let's assume that the goal of China is to annex all those disputed islands (which have natural resources). And the goal of US and their allies is to deny this territorial expansion.

For the last couple of years, I've been reading that the Chinese are testing and field lots of new weaponry that are aimed against US assets, with varying levels of success, e.g. aircraft carriers, stealth fighters, etc.... The tech that has me the most concerned is anti-carrier ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles are cheap and can be massed produced, carriers take a really long time to build and they cost money (not something that the US have in abundant supply today). So, is it possible that China can win this war, by taking out the US navy fleet (missile spam perhaps?), which will no doubt be deployed to assist the Japanese and Koreans?

And here's the wiki link to China's new toys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21D#DF- ... ic_missile

While I'm sure the US can come out with countermeasures, my doubts would be (1) can they be deployed in time? (2) can they be effective against a hoard of those missiles? Remember, missiles cheap and fast to produce, carriers expensive and slow to construct.

Another problem with China's anti-carrier missiles, is that they can allegedly adapted to blow out satellites. With the US military reliance on their techno gizmos, this could be a problem....

[Mr Bean]

But let's just assume that Japan and China did go to war, and the US gets dragged into it. In all likelihood it is going to draw in the Koreans as well, so we have: China/N.Korea vs US/Japan/S.Korea. To those military gurus out there, what happens then? Can US and their allies win a non-nuclear military war against China?

Let's assume that the goal of China is to annex all those disputed islands (which have natural resources). And the goal of US and their allies is to deny this territorial expansion.

For the last couple of years, I've been reading that the Chinese are testing and field lots of new weaponry that are aimed against US assets, with varying levels of success, e.g. aircraft carriers, stealth fighters, etc.... The tech that has me the most concerned is anti-carrier ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles are cheap and can be massed produced, carriers take a really long time to build and they cost money (not something that the US have in abundant supply today). So, is it possible that China can win this war, by taking out the US navy fleet (missile spam perhaps?), which will no doubt be deployed to assist the Japanese and Koreans?

Any conventional war between America and China is going to boil down into an almost purely Naval and Air force contest. Reason being neither side posses the lift capacity to land and take the other sides territory. Even with the entirety of the American military were moved to Japan we'd be unable to land and support them anywhere inside mainland China. Likewise China is totally unable to attack and take Hawaii let alone the American mainland. Maybe Guam... MAYBE.

As far as the traditional war goes, the American Navy can sink the Chinese Navy within two weeks with what we have in range. We won't be able to touch the Chinese mainland in any serious way for at least two months it takes to more material to the theater. After that we can conduct a four month bombing campaign which the Chinese can absorb and then we both glare impotently at each other. If it's just about the islands then both sides can hit them from their respective home territorys and since it's non-nuclear the war pretty much stops once one side runs out of planes. America has enough on hand to sink the Chinese Navy, out fight the Chinese Airforce if they put it up in force and then what. The war won't be bloodless and we can expect anywhere between five to thirty percent lost in crippling two of China's military arms and we've left the Army untouched. Toss in the fact the Chinese Air force can refuse to fully commit meaning we are fighting over Chinese soil to fully engage them meaning we lose even more planes and pilots and might lose that fight to boot.

So in the end of the day, Chinese Navy is a small speedbump, the Airforce is a more significant but again foregone conclusion and then what. The America VS China fight has always been the simple fact neither side can effectively get at the other to decisively win any conflict. Not to mention the economic chaos of a fight between us will cripple both nations and quickly. All hail the... wait no the EU's in the shitter to as is Russia so... I dunno, all hail Pax Brazil?

[LadyTevar]

This is neither News nor Politics. Moved to better forum. Please post in the correct forum from now on, ok?

[Dominarch's Hope]

The Korean peninsula burns. And China is more than capable of making it effectively impregnable on their side. Which would leave coming down from Mongolia/Russia, which isnt going to happen, or coming up from Indochina, which is....possible but not a particularly attractive option. *

Now, an actual force on force clash with inadequate or ineffective prep time on Chinese soild between both nations armored forces, heavily favors America.

Kontakt ERA? We have ERA too, and more money and factories to make it and slather on our tanks. Once you get past that, do Chinese tanks have comparable composite armor to DU-Chobam? Does China have half the first class tanks as America brought to Desert Storm? By half, I mean T-80/T-90 equivalents or heavily modernized older models.

But here is the important part. Even with America's vast Mechanized advantages, this wont be Desert Storm all over again. The PLA isnt poorly motivated and demoralized Iraqi conscripts who are now semi legendary for incompentence. There will be heavy casualties, extreme enough that after the first major battle or two, I would be appalled if more than 1/3 or the AFVs hadnt taken serious damage and were completely combat ready. Then comes mines and anti-tank rockets/missiles. Not IEDs, but dedicated mines.

Even if 80% of the entire American Armed forces was deployed from Indochina into Southern China, and modernized/armored up pre-fight, we couldnt bring China down. Annhilate the mechanized forces? Yes, but its a pyrrhic victory. Afterwards, its a brutal slog that will be inevitably stopped. And then maybe pushed back out.

As long as China can manufacture Anti-tank missiles sufficient to kill an Abrams, TUSK package and standard DU enhanced Chobham. Which is reasonable to assume they can. And its an exaggeration to assume America will use the TUSK ERA on everything.


Now, the reason I typed this is because the reverse, is blatantly impossible. Because the USN would outright dominate any naval fight. It would only be a question if China can bring sufficient missile spam into play. Which they might be able to do. But the USN would survive as a force projecting institution. Because its huge.

*Im not even mentioning certain Indian/Nepalese passes. Just no.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Chinese anti ship ballistic missile has never even been tested once, and would fall right within the intercept capabilities of SM-3. SM-3 is widely deployed and tested. DF-21D, if that is even what it is called, is maybe the overrated weapon online since the Berkut fighter, but then, it doesn't help that the USN vastly played up the threat a few years ago to try to get more money, which it actually did, at the cost of KEI and ABL being killed. Cheap is not how I would describe a sixteen ton single role MRBM and associated long range targeting system anyway.

War ends in 45 minutes after nuclear weapons vaporize a large swath of China, Korea Japan and part of the US. The proposed scenario is too broad to avoid employment of nuclear arms. The world goes back to being completely Eurocentric for another several dark violent centuries.

[Dominarch's Hope]

I thinks its generally assumed to leave out NBCs, since countries who are in large part committing genocidal scale slaughter upon each other get mighty vindictive and are likely to just fuck everybody else for good measure.

See-USSR aiming nukes at Aus and NZ.

[Mr Bean]

Dominarch's Hope you vastly underestimate the logistical problems of getting forces in theater to attack China. When the US military games out America VS China the record is something like 3000-0 to the defender in these types of simulations. If it does not go Nuclear and stays conventional any attempt to move enough forces to South Korea (Which must then attack through the most heavily defended few miles in the world) would take over two years, tie up the entire American transportation fleet and leave us out-numbered only seven to one.

I just want to repeat that again, if we tried using SK as our entry point onto the Chinese mainland, IE a friendly well defended country it would take us two years, it would be obivious and at the end of the day we'd still be massivly outnumbered. Chances are any attempt to reinforce SK with an eye towards offensive action would lead to Seoul burning and SK surrendering inside of a single month not two years.

I can not stress this enough so I'll repeat this again. Any force attempting to attack China would need a minimum of a year to build up sufficient forces to be utterly outnumbered from simply impossibly out-numbered.

[AndroAsc]

Isn't all this discussion we're having here on the assumption that US maintains naval superiority? How valid an assumption is that? Yes, I know the Chinese's anti-carrier missiles are not tested, but given the secretive nature of their military plans, I doubt they have display a "show of force" any time soon. If anything, it makes sense to keep it as their ace in the holes.

IF China manages to sink US carrier groups, wouldn't that be game over for US and their allies? It takes almost a decade to construct a carrier (if memory serves correctly), and given the manufacturing capabilities of China, they can pump out replacement missiles much faster than the US can pump out replacement carriers.

[weemadando]

Sinking a US carrier would be a tactical victory, but a strategic loss.

You're talking about potentially killing thousands of service members in a single strike, causing an unimaginable loss of face and probably causing some significant ecological issues in the area.

But let's look at the first two things. You just got a 9/11 body count, made the US look like chumps and simultaneously removed the potential for them to have a limited response and contain the conflict.

The US (govt,military and people) can either swallow their pride and accept the loss, or they can lash out at you with their remaining, capable assets.

*edit* This is of course, just speculation based on prior policy/actions.

[Sea Skimmer]

IF China manages to sink US carrier groups, wouldn't that be game over for US and their allies? It takes almost a decade to construct a carrier (if memory serves correctly), and given the manufacturing capabilities of China, they can pump out replacement missiles much faster than the US can pump out replacement carriers.

The US has several thousand land based fighter planes, and around eight hundred tankers and bombers. The reason the US needs carriers in some situations is lack of US owned bases in the western pacific, having South Korea and Japan on the US side removes that problem. Also South Korea and Japan between them already have a stock of land based planes approaching half the Chinese air force alongside serous ground based air defenses. Just overwhelming those forces, if the Chinese even could, its open to question, would see much of the PLAAF destroyed.

Chinese manufacturing would count for little in a major war with the US, because China is so damn easy to blockade and lacks anything like the naval power it would need to counteract a blockade. China is now dependent on important vast amounts of food, energy and raw materials of all sorts. No surprise that China is now pouring a lot of money into building a navy. This assumes nuclear weapons are not used in a long war, which they plainly would be. That's the whole reason to have the things. Anyway, its not like the US has a small arms industry, and the US is a much better ally with most of the rest of the worlds arms makers then China is. China would really only be able to turn to Russia, and Russia is at best an indifferent supplier to China. They've long refused to sell the best stuff they have, and in any case, few contracts could be executed on a meaningful scale in less then several years.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Dominarch's Hope you vastly underestimate the logistical problems of getting forces in theater to attack China. When the US military games out America VS China the record is something like 3000-0 to the defender in these types of simulations. If it does not go Nuclear and stays conventional any attempt to move enough forces to South Korea (Which must then attack through the most heavily defended few miles in the world) would take over two years, tie up the entire American transportation fleet and leave us out-numbered only seven to one.

I just want to repeat that again, if we tried using SK as our entry point onto the Chinese mainland, IE a friendly well defended country it would take us two years, it would be obivious and at the end of the day we'd still be massivly outnumbered. Chances are any attempt to reinforce SK with an eye towards offensive action would lead to Seoul burning and SK surrendering inside of a single month not two years.

I can not stress this enough so I'll repeat this again. Any force attempting to attack China would need a minimum of a year to build up sufficient forces to be utterly outnumbered from simply impossibly out-numbered.

There is a reason I assumed stupidly favorable conditions and China dropping the ball.


It was to portray the best case scenario. Notice, I dont claim in anyway that America would win decisively. I just skipped the "boring" stuff to get directly to the fight.

Which ends in, even favorable conditions, in the destruction of the majority of American combat capability. So that any guest viewer is even further discouraged from assuming America could beat China now.



All the logistics mean, and assuming China isnt stupid, is that by the time America is in position, China has made the path a brutally difficult advance if not impossible.


Mr.Bean. The point was to hammer it in absolutely.


Besides, the Korean Peninsula is a nogo. North Korea can provide a long enough obstacle for China to fortify and prepare the shit out of it.


Literally, the only way for this to ever work, is a lolmagic out of the blue thunder run.


Here is the important point. WE STILL COULDNT PUT THEM DOWN FOR GOOD. We would literally break our military and still couldnt guarantee victory today.


Now...in 1990? Maybe. Doubtful but maybe.

[Zwinmar]

Mainland Japan probably devastated, Seoul gone, Taiwan conquered in opening salvos.
US Navy contains, coalition forces retake to Korean DMZ, maybe a bit beyond, Pyongyang obliterated.
Marines are mobilized enforce arrive in Japan securing airfields, push into Taiwan.
Chinese infrastructure obliterated by cruise missiles and high level bombing runs.
Russia invades Mongolia and western China, various oppressed ethnic groups rebel, Tibet and others claim independence.
Embargo against China, as RoK and US forces push north.
Stalemate.

[Ralin]

Mainland Japan probably devastated, Seoul gone, Taiwan conquered in opening salvos.

So, I've heard multiple times elsewhere that the whole "Seoul would be obliterated in any war with North Korea" thing is grossly exaggerated. I'm not clear on why it wouldn't be as bad as it seems like it would and I'd appreciate it if anyone here can tell me.

[Sea Skimmer]

Because North Korean artillery can only reach Seoul from a fairly small slice of North Korean territory, in which only a few dozen firing positions exist, though more mobile weapons could move in. Only certain 240mm rocket launchers and the large but rather slow firing 170mm guns can actually range on the downtown areas of the city. Anything else would have to be a big free flight rocket like FROG-7 or a ballistic missile. Nothing like the full weight of North Korean artillery can reach it without North Korea first capturing South Korean territory and displacing its weapons forward.

However some rather large South Korean urban areas now exist much closer to the DMZ. A lot of people live in those places, and some are exposed to much more numerous North Korean weapons. The level of urban sprawl north of Seoul is incredible, though a fair bit of it is still out of range due to the way the DMZ also angles north. Areas that were wide open rice paddies twenty years ago are now huge clusters of fifteen story apartment buildings from one side of the valley to the other.

This actually is a major factor too in why a North Korean invasion just won't work anymore. Even if they had fuel, and had modern tanks, or the PLA joined them, they'd have to advance past actual miles of solid rubble heaps from all those buildings being blown up. It'd be like trying to attack through Stalingrad all over again... except down the long axis.

[The_Saint]

Was this not all covered within the last year or two where it was explained (I think by stuart) that whichever US Navy carrier is in theatre is basically acting as a nuclear tripmine.....

[Dominarch's Hope]

Realistically, it would involve any Chinese attempt to actuallh take Taiwan by force absolutely crushed, and South Korea being devastated with China racing down the peninsula towards Pyongyang and the DMZ. The US doesnt want North Korea on its hands and neither does South Korea.

Which leaves China with them and the full bill of the recovery effort. The best thing China could do, the kindest, is dispersing the population throughout Chinese cities and settling it themselves with their own people, and wihin a single generation, the horrors of the Kim Dynasty will be wiped away. In fact, its likely what they would do.


That or something similar to Tibet.


But a land invasion of China? Oh hell no. Just hell no. Iran would be far too costly. Much less China.

[weemadando]

Was this not all covered within the last year or two where it was explained (I think by stuart) that whichever US Navy carrier is in theatre is basically acting as a nuclear tripmine.....

Yeah, that was pretty much my point.

Congratulations, you just killed thousands and removed primary way for the US to strike back at you/show an amazingly pissed off populace that they're doing something.

So, good for you I guess.

[Irbis]

So, if a Nuclear Fairy actually disappeared ABC from equation:

China/NK overrun Korea; Every airport in Japan capable of landing military planes is bombed by planes or missiles into uselessness. In response, US Navy sinks what it can from Chinese shipping, blockades China, some bombardment is carried out against PRC ports in retaliation, mostly unsuccessful due to defence and absorbing of damage. After some months or years of stalemate, some sort of ceasefire is negotiated, unified Korea becomes Chinese puppet state, Taiwan might finally proclaim independence. Chinese military and economy are set back two decades by war damage, world enters decade long deep recession. Did I miss anything?

As for sinking carriers, several nuclear subs sank and the seas wasn't really damaged, so anything that serious is unlikely, plus, wreckage would probably be salvaged immediately after war.

[PeZook]

"Nuclear tripmine" doesn't mean it will explode like a nuke, just that sinking a carrier means escalation to the point where the use of nuclear weapons suddenly comes to the table. Kinda like the American troops in Korea: if you cross the DMZ, you will have to shoot at Americans, which means you risk nuclear war.

[Irbis]

Yes, but any sort of engagement between major powers will quickly produce five digit casualties, carrier or no carrier, so once serious conflict starts it will quickly lose its usefulness as trip of any sort.

Plus, OP stated nukes were eaten by fairy or something. Because in real world firing ballistic missile, no matter if anti-carrier, anti-satelite, or anti-squirrel one, will just be taken as nuclear trip in most cases anyway triggering response.