Chinese Naval Might

[Patroklos]

Just so people here have a reference go by here are the numbers each side has to fight over the Straits of Malacca and the Indian Ocean. Note this is only the numbers. There is not a single platform in the PLAN inventory that is not at least 20 years behind its US counterpart.

Carriers:
CVN - 0/11
LHA/LHD 0/10

Submarines:
SSN - 5/53

Surface Combatants:
CG - 0/22
DDG - 26/52
FFG - 51/30

Oilers/Replenishment
AO - 7/23

[Drake Tungsten]

Also, the USN's role would not just be adding bombers but providing fighter support for USAF bombers. They could mitigate to acceptable losses.

How exactly are Navy fighter going to fly from the Indian Ocean to NW China? Your argument only makes sense if you're willing to widen the war and bomb the pipeline in a country within the range of USN airpower.

[Patroklos]

Yes. Maybe you should read up on China's activities in Central Asia.

I know you like playing devils advocate, but unfortunetly this one is just so out there that it doesn't work.

China is utterly reliant on its seaborne trade (as most nations are) and they know it. This is the primary motivation for expanding their blue water Navy. There are other potential (and far more likely) maritime competitors besides the US, btw, of which their current build up will make them usefully competitive against.

[Drake Tungsten]

China is utterly reliant on its seaborne trade (as most nations are) and they know it.

Yes. That's why they're expanding their land-access to oil reserves.

[Patroklos]

Good luck getting the basing rights in Central Asia for that.

The are not needed. For one a war with China is not going to happen in vacuum. Any even remotely plausible scenario (and I use that relative, there is no really plausible scenario) China is alone.

It doesn't really matter, any pipelines would be in range of USN cruise missles and either direct LGB or ALCM attack by US bombers. China would be hard pressed to keep us out of mainland airspace, there is no hope of them defending a pipline from Iraq to them.

The USN is even less capable of striking a Chinese pipeline in Xinjiang. Using carrier-based airpower in Afghanistan was hard enough.

???

Using carrier based aircraft in Afghanistan was no big deal at all, and is used routinely whenever a carrier is in the area.

You think China is just going to sit by as B-1s and B-52s lumber over the Himalayas? B-2s are the only plausible option, but that's a hell of a risk to take with a $2 billion dollar plane.

This is WWIII, these $2 billion dollar aircraft were build with the express purpose of being risked in attacking such targets (though not nuclear this time around). Why you think China with an airforce unable to keep the USAF from attacking the mainland will be capable of defending thousands of miles of pipeline outside its territory is beyond me.

The idea that China could prevent this when we will in all probability have the "wink wink" support of Inida is even more absurd. But this is all academic, those resourse routes don't exist and won't in any relevent capacity for multiple decades. China is tethered to its seaborne resource access for the forseeable future.

Yes. That's why they're expanding their land-access to oil reserves.

Irrelevant, that is not the same as not being reliant on seaborne resource access. Even if they could get 50% of their resources via land routes it would still be inadequate to free themselves from this stategic problem. They would still be unable to function without their access to seaborne resources.

[Drake Tungsten]

Any even remotely plausible scenario (and I use that relative, there is no really plausible scenario) China is alone.

Yes, Russia and the other members of the SCO are certainly going to side with the US in a potential war against China.

This is WWIII

No, it's not. WWIII involves us nuking every major city in China and them nuking all of ours. Whether or not an oil pipeline survives in that scenario is a little irrelevant, innit?

[Darius871]

Also, the USN's role would not just be adding bombers but providing fighter support for USAF bombers. They could mitigate to acceptable losses.

How exactly are Navy fighter going to fly from the Indian Ocean to NW China? Your argument only makes sense if you're willing to widen the war and bomb the pipeline in a country within the range of USN airpower.

Meh, F-18's have a ~3000mi range with drop tanks and it's only ~700mi to the Chinese border and ~1500 to parts of the Kazakh border, but that is cutting it ridiculously close. It might take a stop at Baghram, which we don't even know to not be in play in this scenario. Hell, since this is potentially decades into the future we don't even know for 100% sure what Russia's stance would be toward surgical strikes within one of the 'Stans in the paper tiger that is the SCO, which if diplomatically possible would cut the two pipelines' distance from the sea to ~700 and ~1400. And we don't even know whether Russia's already a combatant or not. And why are we leaving out cruise missiles? Christ, this is why I hate silly hypos like these.

[Kuciwalker]

Since this is potentially decades into the future, we might as well assume we have cheap long-range stealth drones capable of taking them out (or, yeah, cruise missiles).

[Drake Tungsten]

If you do that, I'm going to assume that China has installed Goa'uld shielding technology on their pipelines.

[Darius871]

Clearly NGR's ghost has possessed someone...

[Drake Tungsten]

NGR...

[Patroklos]

Yes, Russia and the other members of the SCO are certainly going to side with the US in a potential war against China.

The SCO is not a formal or binding military alliance in the slightest. Even if it were, there is no way this goes down without China being the agresser. There is no hope of even Russia directly providing military support (resourse support sure).

BTW, why do you imagine a victorios and hegemonic China on its border would be a good thing from Russia's point of view?

No, it's not. WWIII involves us nuking every major city in China and them nuking all of ours. Whether or not a oil pipeline survives in that scenario is a little irrelevant, innit?

WWIII is in no way predicated on the use of nuclear weapons. All the term describes is a globe spanning war between major powers.

Irregardless of your sematics, the points given stand. There is no realistic way China can avoid being strangled to death in the short run. China can do nothing but play the besieged, the only question is how much damage they are willing to absorb before throwing in the towel.

[Drake Tungsten]

WWIII is in no way predicated on the use of nuclear weapons. All the term describes is a globe spanning war between major powers.

You really think it's possible to have a globe-spanning war between major powers that won't devolve into a nuclear exchange?

I'm going to debate Kuci now. You're obviously not being serious...

[Patroklos]

You really think it's possible to have a globe-spanning war between major powers that won't devolve into a nuclear exchange?

The conflict we are describing is a globe spanning war between major powers that as of yet nobody has decided needs to escalate to nuclear weapons.

So, go ahead and tell us when you thing China will decide its existance is worth less than sucking it up and giving up on whatever hair brained aggressive scheme started this whole hypothetical in the first place.

I'm going to debate Kuci now. You're obviously not being serious...

Your the one imagining magical invulnerable pipelines providing the vast majority of Chinese oil (hardly the only resource in question BTW) over multiple thousands of miles through some of the worlds most difficult terrain.

[Wezil]

Even if it were, there is no way this goes down without China being the agressor.

Why?