Chinese Naval Might

[Flubber]

its often difficult to build pipelines-- there are usually problems with the locals (even for a one mile pipe in Canada) and the pipe will be a pretty undefendable target against any disgruntled group. AS the distance increases, generally the practicalities favor tankers for oil. Hundreds of tankers can do the ME to China run with very little issue-- If one breaks or sinks the general flow of oil resources just continues. Pipelines? One well organized territorial rebel groub could cut your entire supply-- an earthquake can wreck the whole system-- A dispute with an intervening nation can interrupt supply.

Natural gas? This is pipeline driven to a much greater extent than oil. Liquified Natural Gas can be transported by tanker but the liquification and re-gassification plants are massive pieces of infrastructure which current natural gas prices in many markets just do not support. China probably has enough coal that its not feelina big need for NG anyway right now.

I don't know military hardware at all but in some of the places we are talking about traversing with a pipeline, it strikes me that special forces could be very effective. I'll assume that they could sweep through and bury some ordinance under the pipe at several locations (every night the thing gets severed in 3 places as the ordinance goes off and causes a spectatcular fiire). More insidious could be if there were bacterial or chemical agents that could be introduced into ther pipeline stream. (Chemists help me out-- there must be something that could either interact with petroleum or eat away at the pipeline itself that a small team could drop in with in sufficient quatities LOL). If there was something like that available, the flow of the pipe itself could spread it until the whole pipe was comprimised.

Again, I know nothing of the military or chemical possibilities but I am aware of how very difficult it is to guard or protect a pipeline system of any size. This is true even if you have a single individual wanting to cause it damage. Make it a situation where a nation state like the US wants to damage a pipe and then additionally have the piperun through 3-5 countries and ummmm its mission impossible. In my view a dedicated nation with the resources of the US could completely interdict any and all pipelines from the Mideast to China.

All that said-- If China wants natural gas in particular, pipelines are the way to go. The mideast has a fair bit of it and its no longer seen as feasible that it go to North America (since we found so much of our own). Thos pipeline would likely be useless as a source of supply in the event of war but for normal economic development there are possibilities. China would have to worry about the vulnerabilities but occassional disruption from some ragtag group in one of the 'stans might be an acceptable price to secure a natural gas supply

[Darius871]

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.

I'll give you the Six Days War, even though the first bomb's construction did begin in 1967 and at least some of the wild speculation puts its completion before the war's start in June. In any event, it's pretty much the historical consensus that the Israelis were on the verge of very effectively using their "handful" in the Yom Kippur War and this was prevented only by U.S. intervention. The wiki version for the lazy:

On the afternoon of October 7, an alarmed Dayan told Meir that "this is the end of the third temple". He was warning of Israel's impending total defeat, but "Temple" was also the code word for nuclear weapons.[110] Dayan again raised the nuclear topic in a cabinet meeting, warning that the country was approaching a point of "last resort."[111] Meir on 8 October authorized the assembling of 13 20-kiloton-of-TNT (84 TJ) atomic bombs. Nuclear-capable Jericho missiles at Hirbat Zachariah and F-4s at Tel Nof were prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets;[110] the preparation was done in an easily detectable way, likely as a signal to the United States.[111] Kissinger learned of the nuclear alert on the morning of October 9. That day, President Nixon ordered the commencement of Operation Nickel Grass, an American airlift to replace all of Israel's material losses.[112] Anecdotal evidence suggests that Kissinger told Sadat that the reason for the U.S. airlift was that the Israelis were close to "going nuclear."[110]

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

Abdel Nasser, among others, would tend to disagree: "[t]he battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel." Sadat's initial objectives were more limited, but I don't have much doubt that had Israel been entirely overrun, which appeared to be inevitable before the U.S. stepped in, its state apparatus would have been replaced with something entirely different. I'm not talking about genocide here, just conquest and regime change as with any other total war. If you're

I'll admit it's a weak analogy since we're talking about major powers, but it's pretty much the only real example since Hiroshima where a nuclear-armed nation was locked in a total war (as opposed to a proxy insurgency, police action, border skirmish, whathaveyou) and yet held back until the last minute even without the MAD deterrent. Why two major powers in total war with the MAD deterrent would be more prone to pushing the button is beyond me.

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.

I don't even know what this means. Considering that China's naval strength would be limited to coastal defense at worst or regional power-projection at best, I thought we were all assuming this wouldn't be "globe-spanning" except to the extent that we might be seizing some Chinese tankers on the other side of the world. It'd be geographically "limited" to China's borders from the get-go, but that doesn't mean it's not "total war" in the sense of all military options being on the table.

[Felch]

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?

Good point

[Drake Tungsten]

Abdel Nasser, among others, would tend to disagree

Who cares? You can quote all the Egyptian bluster you want, but Israel was never in danger of being overrun in either the 1967 or 1973 wars.

It'd be geographically "limited" to China's borders from the get-go

Bombing pipelines in Central Asia is hardly limiting the war's scope.

[Darius871]

You can quote all the Egyptian bluster you want, but Israel was never in danger of being overrun in either the 1967 or 1973 wars.

Yes, things were looking so rosy that they concluded all was lost, took the nuclear option, and used it to pressure the reluctant U.S. into a gigantic 22,000-ton airlift to turn things around at the last minute. You seriously haven't heard about any of this? Come on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass

[Drake Tungsten]

Your argument would be a little more convincing if the Egyptians had ever gotten beyond the east bank of the Suez Canal or the Syrians had ever got off the Golan Heights...

[Zkribbler]

BTW: China is in talks to help Cuba search for and develope offshore deposits of petroleum.

[Sir Og]

its often difficult to build pipelines-- there are usually problems with the locals (even for a one mile pipe in Canada) and the pipe will be a pretty undefendable target against any disgruntled group. AS the distance increases, generally the practicalities favor tankers for oil. Hundreds of tankers can do the ME to China run with very little issue-- If one breaks or sinks the general flow of oil resources just continues. Pipelines? One well organized territorial rebel groub could cut your entire supply-- an earthquake can wreck the whole system-- A dispute with an intervening nation can interrupt supply.

Natural gas? This is pipeline driven to a much greater extent than oil. Liquified Natural Gas can be transported by tanker but the liquification and re-gassification plants are massive pieces of infrastructure which current natural gas prices in many markets just do not support. China probably has enough coal that its not feelina big need for NG anyway right now.

I don't know military hardware at all but in some of the places we are talking about traversing with a pipeline, it strikes me that special forces could be very effective. I'll assume that they could sweep through and bury some ordinance under the pipe at several locations (every night the thing gets severed in 3 places as the ordinance goes off and causes a spectatcular fiire). More insidious could be if there were bacterial or chemical agents that could be introduced into ther pipeline stream. (Chemists help me out-- there must be something that could either interact with petroleum or eat away at the pipeline itself that a small team could drop in with in sufficient quatities LOL). If there was something like that available, the flow of the pipe itself could spread it until the whole pipe was comprimised.

Again, I know nothing of the military or chemical possibilities but I am aware of how very difficult it is to guard or protect a pipeline system of any size. This is true even if you have a single individual wanting to cause it damage. Make it a situation where a nation state like the US wants to damage a pipe and then additionally have the piperun through 3-5 countries and ummmm its mission impossible. In my view a dedicated nation with the resources of the US could completely interdict any and all pipelines from the Mideast to China.

All that said-- If China wants natural gas in particular, pipelines are the way to go. The mideast has a fair bit of it and its no longer seen as feasible that it go to North America (since we found so much of our own). Thos pipeline would likely be useless as a source of supply in the event of war but for normal economic development there are possibilities. China would have to worry about the vulnerabilities but occassional disruption from some ragtag group in one of the 'stans might be an acceptable price to secure a natural gas supply

My questions with regard to pipelines was because of Patti's claim that pipelines cold only provide a very small portion of China's oil because they lack capacity.
I agree that in case of war protecting a pipeline will be a *****. Especially on the territory of another country.
It's hard even in peace time to ensure that some douche won't decide to blackmail you by shutting down the pipe that passes through his country.

[Patroklos]

I see we have moved on from this riduclous tangent about imaginary piplines.

That diversion having reached its inevitable conclusion, how exactly is China supposed to overcome a 5/1 submarine gap and a 2/1 destroyer gap in ten years given each of those platforms require 2-3 years of drydock time per hull? The OP really is retarded on its face.

[Drake Tungsten]

I see we have moved on from this riduclous tangent about imaginary piplines.

Yes, imaginary...

[Felch]

I see we have moved on from this riduclous tangent about imaginary piplines.

That diversion having reached its inevitable conclusion, how exactly is China supposed to overcome a 5/1 submarine gap and a 2/1 destroyer gap in ten years given each of those platforms require 2-3 years of drydock time per hull? The OP really is retarded on its face.

The OP explains that the Chinese are expanding their shipbuilding abilities. You do realize that countries are able to operate more than one drydock at a time, right?

[Flubber]

BTW: China is in talks to help Cuba search for and develope offshore deposits of petroleum.

Nothing really earth-shattering there. Companies from other countries have been working in the Cuban offshore for years. If China gets serious there though it could ramp up exploration even more

[David Floyd]

Your argument would be a little more convincing if the Egyptians had ever gotten beyond the east bank of the Suez Canal or the Syrians had ever got off the Golan Heights...

That argument is idiotic. Initially the Syrians were opposed by somewhere around 2 mechanized/armored brigades, one of which was mostly defeated on the first day, by 5 divisions of Syrians, 3 of which were mechanized/armored. In perspective, the Israelis had around 4k mech/armored troops w/ around 175 tanks and 50 guns, vs. around 30k Syrian mech/armored troops w/ 800+ tanks and 500+ guns (IIRC, someone can check me on this). Yeah, the Israelis rushed reserves north, but only succeeded in turning back the Syrians late on October 8th, and even though this front seemed to be secure, they were also heavily outnumbered in the Sinai region by the Egyptians.

The point is, what we know in hindsight was completely unknown at the time - Israel could have gone nuclear had the Syrian or Egyptian fronts gone even a little differently, and frankly, they would probably have been justified in doing so.

By the way, Patroklos is pwning you in the pipeline debate.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yankee Serb disagreeing with you = final victory.

[David Floyd]