Chinese Naval Might

[Patroklos]

Why?

The only even remotely likely event sparking this imaginary war is a Chinese attempt on Taiwan. I say remotely likely with the caveat that we have to assume something starts this war for the discussion, noting is really remotely likely as things stand now.

I am all for imagination though Wezil, what do you think is the most likely (again, relative to this discussion) scenario where the US is the agresser?

[Sir Og]

How much oil tankers does an oil pipeline replace?

[Darius871]

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

Why's it impossible for both sides to exercise restraint on that one point? Hell, Israel dealt with wars risking outright national dissolution and yet managed to not nuke non-nuclear enemies, but somehow two powers risking nothing more than regional hegemony and facing the prospect of MAD would be more trigger-happy?

[Patroklos]

How much oil tankers does an oil pipeline replace?

That depends on the size of the lines. Many (most?) pipelines are merely shortcuts to get oil to tankers that do most of the long distance work.

The Alaskan pipeline (48") can convey over 700,000 barrels per day, assuming there is transport on the other end to handle that volume.

Oil tanker transport capacity varies wildly depending on the distance they are designed to transport and to what canal specifications they were build for.

[Wezil]

The only even remotely likely event sparking this imaginary war is a Chinese attempt on Taiwan. I say remotely likely with the caveat that we have to assume something starts this war for the discussion, noting is really remotely likely as things stand now.

I would agree that is the most likely scenario but I don't think it is the only possible scenario.

I am all for imagination though Wezil, what do you think is the most likely (again, relative to this discussion) scenario where the US is the agresser?

You said "the only way", not most likely.

Two powers, one declining the other rising, can lead to all sorts of scenarios.

[Sir Og]

I haven't done the math but it seems that a pipeline would be a lot better than tankers. Using the analogy of having water running through pipes and having to transport water with buckets or trucks or whatever.

[Drake Tungsten]

Hell, Israel dealt with wars risking outright national dissolution and yet managed to not nuke non-nuclear enemies

1. It's not clear that Israel had any nukes to use in the Six Days War or had more than a handful of nukes during the Yom Kippur War.

2. Neither war ever risked the "outright national dissolution" of Israel.

somehow two powers risking nothing more than regional hegemony and facing the prospect of MAD would be more trigger-happy?

If the U.S. and China are going to choose to fight a limited war, they're going to do so before the war expands to a "globe-spanning" one, precisely because of fears of a nuclear exchange.

[Patroklos]

I haven't done the math but it seems that a pipeline would be a lot better than tankers. Using the analogy of having water running through pipes and having to transport water with buckets or trucks or whatever.

Pipelines are more efficient when possible, but pipelines can't be build everywhere. I they could 2,000,000,000,000 tons of oil wouldn't be transported by tanker every year.

Drake is really just being difficult when he suggests it is plausible for China to construct piplines of relevant capacity in the time frames we are talking about. Any look at a map shows exactly why that is.

You said "the only way", not most likely.

Two powers, one declining the other rising, can lead to all sorts of scenarios.

Eventually something approaches a probability so low that entertaining it as a possibility in discussion is stupid. VT still has a shot at the National Championship technically, but well you see my point.

There is no declining power in this scenario, China is gaining on the US as a relative measurment, not at the expense of the US. This is true for Europe as well. I don't see this as a bad thing.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, because anyone looking at this map will see that it's impossible for China to get significant pipeline access to Russian, Central Asian and Middle Eastern oil and gas reserves...

[Patroklos]

Yes, because anyone looking at this map will see that it's impossible for China to get significant pipeline access to Russian, Central Asian and Middle Eastern oil and gas reserves...

Yes, anyone looking at that map would have to come to the conclusion that there is no possibility of the Chinese building or securing enough pipeline access to in any way releave their strategic weakness of seaborne trade reliance in a timeframe useful for this discussion.

Sorry Drake, this dog won't hunt. You know it. I know it. Out of curiosity, what capacity of pipeline oil do you think China would need to achieve, unmolested my military action, in order to avoid being blockaded to death?

It should also be noted that all that oil infrustucture in that map is primarily for the consumption of Europe. Or in other words, that oil will keep going to Europe unless China wants to fight another continent. It should also be noted that that map shows no major pipelines extending to China, the closest one being 500 miles away.

[Wezil]

Eventually something approaches a probability so low that entertaining it as a possibility in discussion is stupid. VT still has a shot at the National Championship technically, but well you see my point.

I've been enjoying the debate and for the most part agree with your position. I too think it would be extremely difficult to defend a pipeline of that length. It was the absolute nature of your statement that sparked my question. I will take the above to mean you have conceded the point.

There is no declining power in this scenario, China is gaining on the US as a relative measurment, not at the expense of the US. This is true for Europe as well. I don't see this as a bad thing.

I don't expect we would agree on that but it is secondary to my question.

[Felch]

China has coal, couldn't they conceivably exploit that to make ersatz fuel? The technology certainly exists. Air interdiction was only partially effective at cutting off German oil supplies during WWII, and even Japan was able to keep fighting in a limited way while under siege from unrestricted US submarines.

[Sir Og]

That depends on the size of the lines. Many (most?) pipelines are merely shortcuts to get oil to tankers that do most of the long distance work.

The Alaskan pipeline (48") can convey over 700,000 barrels per day, assuming there is transport on the other end to handle that volume.

Oil tanker transport capacity varies wildly depending on the distance they are designed to transport and to what canal specifications they were build for.

Going with your numbers for that type of pipeline and what I found in wikipedia for the largest tankers

Supertanker is an informal term used to describe the largest tankers. Today it is applied to very-large crude carriers (VLCC) and ULCCs with capacity over 250,000 DWT. These ships can transport two million barrels of oil.

This means that the pipeline would move the amount that one of the largest tankers moves in less than 3 days (whatever your definition of day is). I don't know how much time it takes for the tanker to move it's load but the pipelines are pretty effective and the only obstacles as far as I see it are political. This is countered by building many parallel pipelines and hoping that you won't piss everybody of at the same time.

[Drake Tungsten]

China has coal, couldn't they conceivably exploit that to make ersatz fuel?

Probably, but why bother when you have multiple incoming oil pipelines and a strategic petroleum reserve?

[Patroklos]

This means that the pipeline would move the amount that one of the largest tankers moves in less than 3 days (whatever your definition of day is). I don't know how much time it takes for the tanker to move it's load but the pipelines are pretty effective and the only obstacles as far as I see it are political. This is countered by building many parallel pipelines and hoping that you won't piss everybody of at the same time.

China used 365 million barrels of crude oil last year, and can expect at least 5% growth in that demand every year. There is currently not a single pipeline to China of the character Drake suggested would make ME oil easy to access.

By next year China will import 64% of its oil. By 2015 that percentage will be far higher and 70% of those imports will from the Middle East. There is no real possibility of China completing any pipline in that time frame. That means that right now the majority of its oil gets to it via the sea, and there is no short term solution for this relevant to this discussion.

http://www.iags.org/china.htm