Melaca strait China's vulnerability? Is it true or Myth?

[FuturePAF]

If you look closely at the performance of the PLA in the last two years, you will notice a very special phenomenon.

The PLA is looking for opportunities and reasons to engage U.S. forces directly!

The PLA's various operations are pushing the range of operations ever outward, and the U.S. forces are ever moving backward.
After China took the initiative to disconnect the US-China military hotline, the US kept making requests to China through various channels and in various ways to restore the military hotline, which China ignored until the situation eased.
The U.S. can now only encourage and coerce small neighboring countries to interfere with China's development; it does not have the courage to come directly to face the PLA.

The ones who really know the PLA best are the US military, not the politicians, and not the military fans and internet troll!

============================================================
The Tumen River naval base will not be on the agenda so soon. the PLAN can use the Russian naval base. However, Russian naval bases need to be upgraded and expanded to accommodate the PLAN's long-term presence.

Perhaps, but Japan made that kind of calculation nearly a century ago, and once the US focused on Japan, it didn’t end well for them.

Right now, the US military is preoccupied send its munitions to support two wars, and the budget isn’t such that it can ramp up ship building and munitions production on top of those two wars to overmatch China, yet.

It probably may won’t be until at least the 2030s when this issue could come to a head. Currently the US is bogged down, and that more than anything is the defining factor, just like the GWOT was the issue for the first two decades of the century. Btw, this isn’t trolling or fandom, just my read of historical trends. We can agree to disagree, and hope we never have to find out.

 

[Beijingwalker]

Perhaps, but Japan made that kind of calculation nearly a century ago, and once the US focused on Japan, it didn’t end well for them.

us industrial capacity back then accounts for almost half of the world total, multiple times of Japan's, US won the war with the strong unrivaled backing of its then heavy industry and manufacturing, especially steel industry. US quickly outbuilt Japan and Germany during the war .
And do you know the situation in this regard now?

Post in thread 'Why China builds and consumes over half of the world's total steel? Mostly for machinery manufacturing'

Sep 7, 2024

China also builds lots of highways, subways, high speed railways, skyscrapers... they all need lots of steel

• Beijingwalker

 

[Hendarto]

China is not as vulnerable as some people make it to believe. China has a huge oil reserve in Xinjiang they are left unexploited because of remoteness. But rest assured in an emergency they will be developed. China imports roughly 55% of its needs about 20% are covered by imports from Russia and Central Asia. The rest of 35% are from the Middle East and Angola. about 50% are used for transportation and the rest for petrochemicals. But efforts underway to electrify transportation 60% of new car sales are NEV and for long-distance trucking China is developing Hydrogen Power Truck

Here's some information about China's oil reserves:

• Size
• China's oil reserves in 2022 were about 3.8 billion tonnes, which is about 1.58% of the world's total reserves. This puts China 13th in the world for oil reserves.
  
  
• Consumption
• China's proven oil reserves are 5.4 times its annual consumption, which means that without imports, China has about five years of oil left.
  
  
• Strategic reserves
  China's planned state reserves are 475.9 million barrels, and its planned enterprise reserves are 209.44 million barrels. Together, these reserves provide about 90 days of consumption.
  
  
• Imports
  In the first five months of 2023, China's crude oil imports increased by 6.2% to 11.13 million barrels per day.
  
  
• Stockpiling
  China is stockpiling a variety of materials, including oil, natural gas, metals, and precious metals.
  
  
• Oil benchmark
  In March 2018, China introduced a new oil benchmark as part of its effort to become an economic superpower.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
  

 

[Michael]

Perhaps, but Japan made that kind of calculation nearly a century ago, and once the US focused on Japan, it didn’t end well for them.

Right now, the US military is preoccupied send its munitions to support two wars, and the budget isn’t such that it can ramp up ship building and munitions production on top of those two wars to overmatch China, yet.

It probably may won’t be until at least the 2030s when this issue could come to a head. Currently the US is bogged down, and that more than anything is the defining factor, just like the GWOT was the issue for the first two decades of the century. Btw, this isn’t trolling or fandom, just my read of historical trends. We can agree to disagree, and hope we never have to find out.

The example you gave is now just the opposite.

Before Japan “touched” the U.S.: Japan has been depleting its power (in China and Southeast Asia); the U.S. has been “developing”.

Now: the US has been depleting its power(The Russo-Ukrainian War and the Israeli-Palestinian War); China has been “developing”.

So............

====================================================
The “Internet troll” was referring specifically to some ignorant guy, not you.

 

[ety]

You are a semi landlocked country..... China a prisoner of her geography..... there are plenty of videos on this..... spare some time to watch.....

Why are you pouring billions on roads in Pakistan and other central Asian republics? China knows she is a glorified Mongolia..... happy fishing in yellow sea......

Nonsense, China like to do budiness and development with all countries. Again, how ignorant you are, lol.

 

[FuturePAF]

us industrial capacity back then accounts for almost half of the world total, multiple times of Japan's, US won the war with the strong unrivaled backing of its then heavy industry and manufacturing, especially steel industry. US quickly outbuilt Japan and Germany during the war .
And do you know the situation in this regard now?

Post in thread 'Why China builds and consumes over half of the world's total steel? Mostly for machinery manufacturing'

Sep 7, 2024

China also builds lots of highways, subways, high speed railways, skyscrapers... they all need lots of steel

• Beijingwalker

I’m aware of this. But it’s not like the shipyards are gone, they are in mothball. Sure they need renovation and time, but it’s literally about money. If there is a contract out to refurbish the yards they can be brought back in 2-3 years. Training up enough workers may take a little longer, bit with funding and the right incentives, it’s possible by the end of the decade when USN fleet numbers are expected to bottom out.

The US could also outsource some of the shipbuilding to South Korea and Japan.

 

[FuturePAF]

The example you gave is now just the opposite.

Before Japan “touched” the U.S.: Japan has been depleting its power (in China and Southeast Asia); the U.S. has been “developing”.

Now: the US has been depleting its power(The Russo-Ukrainian War and the Israeli-Palestinian War); China has been “developing”.

So............

====================================================
The “Internet troll” was referring specifically to some ignorant guy, not you.

your tight that China isn’t depleting its power the way Japan did back then, it when you said:

“The PLA's various operations are pushing the range of operations ever outward, and the U.S. forces are ever moving backward.”

But it is still friction, depleting relations with otherwise relatively neutral Asian nations. The skirmishes with the Philippines, for example, is galvanizing the ASEAN region to be prepared to see a conflict in the region. Some kind of bilateral demarcation of nautical borders could help ease tensions and have the Philippines less likely to support its territory from being used in a blockade. A pragmatic option, especially if or when the likelihood of conflict seems likely.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[ety]

Some kind of bilateral demarcation of nautical borders could help ease tensions and have the Philippines less likely to support its territory from being used in a blockade. A pragmatic option, especially if or when the likelihood of conflict seems likely.

I don't think Filipin wants to solve any maritime disputes with China now. They just wants to side with US and serve the interests of US by stir up conflicts with China, and therefore stop ASEAN Member States and China current negotiations of the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (COC), such the US is pleased to see.

 

[j_hungary]

Perhaps, but Japan made that kind of calculation nearly a century ago, and once the US focused on Japan, it didn’t end well for them.

Right now, the US military is preoccupied send its munitions to support two wars, and the budget isn’t such that it can ramp up ship building and munitions production on top of those two wars to overmatch China, yet.

It probably may won’t be until at least the 2030s when this issue could come to a head. Currently the US is bogged down, and that more than anything is the defining factor, just like the GWOT was the issue for the first two decades of the century. Btw, this isn’t trolling or fandom, just my read of historical trends. We can agree to disagree, and hope we never have to find out.

Actually, the reason why Ukraine suffered is because US won't want to embattle itself to become burdened. There are a lot of ceiling to go if US expand its military production. The reason here is why?

On the other hand, if and when you see a US war with China, it's never going to be US alone, whether or not they are enough to deal with the issue alone. Which is the reason why I said it's pointless to compare the US military complex to China vis-a-vis, head to head, you need to compare the entire NATO input and NATO allies input (Japan, SK, Australia and so on) because what you are going to see is all those country China will also be facing if and when the Chinese is at war with the US. Because even if these countries aren't directly at war with China, they are going to send material support to the US.

That is called "Strategic Distribution".........

 

[j_hungary]

The example you gave is now just the opposite.

Before Japan “touched” the U.S.: Japan has been depleting its power (in China and Southeast Asia); the U.S. has been “developing”.

Now: the US has been depleting its power(The Russo-Ukrainian War and the Israeli-Palestinian War); China has been “developing”.

So............

====================================================
The “Internet troll” was referring specifically to some ignorant guy, not you.

lol,I don't know what you think US is sending to Ukraine and Israel, if the US did depleting itself to support Ukraine and Israeli, those war would already been done....

The US exerted a lot more resource when they themselves engage in 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the resource and money used in those two war are calculated in trillion, not billions. What we see in Ukraine and Israel is actually peanuts if we compare to the US adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Beijingwalker]

I’m aware of this. But it’s not like the shipyards are gone, they are in mothball. Sure they need renovation and time, but it’s literally about money. If there is a contract out to refurbish the yards they can be brought back in 2-3 years. Training up enough workers may take a little longer, bit with funding and the right incentives, it’s possible by the end of the decade when USN fleet numbers are expected to bottom out.

The US could also outsource some of the shipbuilding to South Korea and Japan.

You surely don't know that shipbuilding is not simply about shipyards but a whole complete complex supply chain which involves thousands if not more manufacturing suppliers of different parts and levels, do you? and what's more, the most important part is a large skilled shipbuilding work force, which takes decades to prepare. 2-3 years? you must be day dreaming.

 

[Michael]

your tight that China isn’t depleting its power the way Japan did back then, it when you said:

“The PLA's various operations are pushing the range of operations ever outward, and the U.S. forces are ever moving backward.”

But it is still friction, depleting relations with otherwise relatively neutral Asian nations. The skirmishes with the Philippines, for example, is galvanizing the ASEAN region to be prepared to see a conflict in the region. Some kind of bilateral demarcation of nautical borders could help ease tensions and have the Philippines less likely to support its territory from being used in a blockade. A pragmatic option, especially if or when the likelihood of conflict seems likely.

Thank you for the clarification.

The friction between China and the Philippines is a normal border friction. Even though the U.S. has been instructing the Philippines to escalate the incident, it is still in the realm of normal border friction.

China has been continuously developing its maritime police in recent years. A large number of new personnel and equipment need to be tested. The Philippine action gives the Chinese Marine Police Bureau a very good opportunity and testing ground. The consumption of Chinese marine police operations in these places is no different from the consumption of their training in their own homes. This is a normal expenditure.
The amount of ammunition consumed by the PLA in every military exercise in recent years is not a small number. It is comparable to the amount of ammunition consumed in some small to medium sized wars.
During the Chinese New Year in 2023. The amount of gunpowder consumed by Chinese civilians setting off fireworks exceeds the total amount of gunpowder consumed during the entire Russian-Ukrainian war. ------ Fireworks are banned in the vast majority of China's urban areas.

These are normal consumption.

Japan was very powerful back then. But, the energy generated by its land mass and population was not enough to support the huge wars it launched. Although it did a lot of construction in occupied areas such as East and Southeast Asia, it did not have the support of a large number of ordinary people, resulting in not much energy being generated in those areas.
Prior to American intervention, Japan's expenditures far exceeded its output, and a large number of young adults within Japan entered military service rather than working on the mainland. Its war expenditures were based on the accumulation of history and the plundering of the occupied territories, which is not a recyclable way.

 

[Michael]

lol,I don't know what you think US is sending to Ukraine and Israel, if the US did depleting itself to support Ukraine and Israeli, those war would already been done....

The US exerted a lot more resource when they themselves engage in 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the resource and money used in those two war are calculated in trillion, not billions. What we see in Ukraine and Israel is actually peanuts if we compare to the US adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan.

lol,I don't know what you think US is sending to Ukraine and Israel, if the US did depleting itself to support Ukraine and Israeli, those war would already been done....

The US exerted a lot more resource when they themselves engage in 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the resource and money used in those two war are calculated in trillion, not billions. What we see in Ukraine and Israel is actually peanuts if we compare to the US adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The heart of the problem is this:
NOW. U.S. power is depleting much faster than it is growing.

In the Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan, the US faced extremely weak opponents, whom it struck with absolute crushing force. In these wars, the U.S. made up for its expenses in the war by plundering local resources and exploiting its allies.

The Russo-Ukrainian war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not at all on the same level as these previous wars. At the same time, it has a completely different war background. The difference in strength between the two sides of the war isn't on the same level compared to them either.

Before these wars/conflicts took place, China and the US were engaged in an economic war. This caused huge losses to both China and the US. And at this time there was a Russo-Ukrainian war. The U.S. provided massive support to Ukraine, and this support amounted to a drain on its own national power; China did not provide support to any country, and China sold living goods to Russia, which was an increase in China's national power.

The United States has not been fully supporting Ukraine. It has been hoping to drain China's national strength by dragging it into the Russo-Ukrainian war by some means. But it has not realized this wish. China will not intervene until the U.S. is massively involved in the Russia-Ukraine war.

The United States provided massive support to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine's vast mineral resources and land. But the translation of these things into national power growth had to happen many years after the war ended.

If you still have rationality, you can look at the financial situation of the US and the rate of renewal of military equipment in these recent years. Then you compare these figures with those of China during the same period and you will get your answer.

Of course, if you're just someone pretending to be asleep, or if you're just someone who gets paid to post ....... Okay, go ahead. ..........

 

[j_hungary]

The heart of the problem is this:
NOW. U.S. power is depleting much faster than it is growing.

In the Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan, the US faced extremely weak opponents, whom it struck with absolute crushing force. In these wars, the U.S. made up for its expenses in the war by plundering local resources and exploiting its allies.

The Russo-Ukrainian war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not at all on the same level as these previous wars. At the same time, it has a completely different war background. The difference in strength between the two sides of the war isn't on the same level compared to them either.

Before these wars/conflicts took place, China and the US were engaged in an economic war. This caused huge losses to both China and the US. And at this time there was a Russo-Ukrainian war. The U.S. provided massive support to Ukraine, and this support amounted to a drain on its own national power; China did not provide support to any country, and China sold living goods to Russia, which was an increase in China's national power.

The United States has not been fully supporting Ukraine. It has been hoping to drain China's national strength by dragging it into the Russo-Ukrainian war by some means. But it has not realized this wish. China will not intervene until the U.S. is massively involved in the Russia-Ukraine war.

The United States provided massive support to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine's vast mineral resources and land. But the translation of these things into national power growth had to happen many years after the war ended.

If you still have rationality, you can look at the financial situation of the US and the rate of renewal of military equipment in these recent years. Then you compare these figures with those of China during the same period and you will get your answer.

Of course, if you're just someone pretending to be asleep, or if you're just someone who gets paid to post ....... Okay, go ahead. ..........

It wasn't calculated like that, because the US was NOT directly involved in the War in Ukraine or Israel, unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whether or not Iraq and Afghanistan was a push over is beside the point because once you deploy your force in theater, all the combat support element have to deploy with your force, and that multiple level of logistic challenge to the US. For example, even if you don't use airstrike, your F-15 and F-16 will still need to forward deploy in the field even if they don't fly at all, and all the service support element (fuel truck, ammo cart, maintenance and so on) would still need to be beside that F-15 or F-16 that you do not use. Because you are the one that fight in this war. Which mean you need to round out just about everything.

Ukraine is more intensive than Iraq and Afghanistan, but then the US didn't fight it themselves, all the combat support (ground crew, fuel, ammo, technician and so on) are local, they aren't the US. Which mean the support level are very low and that's a lot less resource intensive. That's why US spend 20 Trillion in Afghanistan in 20 years and less than 200 billion for Ukraineover the last 2.5/3 years.

On the other hand, US did not provide "Massive Support" to Ukraine, the US support level in term of hardware are pretty small actually, you are talking about 31 Abrams tanks, not 1000 (US have 8000), you are talking about 40 HIMARS, not 200 (US have around 800), 200 Bradley not 1000 (US had around 5600), you are talking about hundreds of ATACMS not thousand (US has 10,000+), 1 Patriot System instead of 20 (US operate 100 system/480 TEL) the US weren't even giving out F-16 to Ukraine even tho they have 400 of those sitting in Davis Monthan AFB basically just rotting/rusting there. No Cruise Missile, No Standoff Munition, even JDAM is in hundred, not thousand. The only biggest supply the US supported is the artillery round, but it's just 950,000 rounds a year and the current US Capacity is 450,000 a month, it can be surged into over 1 million a month without going into wartime production.

As for Israel, US didn't support a lot to Israel either, because IDF uses their own stuff, what US did is replenish the projectile used in Arrow and Iron Dome, both of which were only material and technological support, US didn't make Arrow interceptor or Iron Dome projectile.

Again, just look at the past Ukraine and Israel bill and you will see, both together are about 80 billions and it was supposed to cover til FY2025, so it's virtually just 40 billion a year, that's 1/5 of the operational budget for US in Afghanistan in a single year........This won't deplete the US combat power.......

 

[Michael]

It wasn't calculated like that, because the US was NOT directly involved in the War in Ukraine or Israel, unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whether or not Iraq and Afghanistan was a push over is beside the point because once you deploy your force in theater, all the combat support element have to deploy with your force, and that multiple level of logistic challenge to the US. For example, even if you don't use airstrike, your F-15 and F-16 will still need to forward deploy in the field even if they don't fly at all, and all the service support element (fuel truck, ammo cart, maintenance and so on) would still need to be beside that F-15 or F-16 that you do not use. Because you are the one that fight in this war. Which mean you need to round out just about everything.

Ukraine is more intensive than Iraq and Afghanistan, but then the US didn't fight it themselves, all the combat support (ground crew, fuel, ammo, technician and so on) are local, they aren't the US. Which mean the support level are very low and that's a lot less resource intensive. That's why US spend 20 Trillion in Afghanistan in 20 years and less than 200 billion for Ukraineover the last 2.5/3 years.

On the other hand, US did not provide "Massive Support" to Ukraine, the US support level in term of hardware are pretty small actually, you are talking about 31 Abrams tanks, not 1000 (US have 8000), you are talking about 40 HIMARS, not 200 (US have around 800), 200 Bradley not 1000 (US had around 5600), you are talking about hundreds of ATACMS not thousand (US has 10,000+), 1 Patriot System instead of 20 (US operate 100 system/480 TEL) the US weren't even giving out F-16 to Ukraine even tho they have 400 of those sitting in Davis Monthan AFB basically just rotting/rusting there. No Cruise Missile, No Standoff Munition, even JDAM is in hundred, not thousand. The only biggest supply the US supported is the artillery round, but it's just 950,000 rounds a year and the current US Capacity is 450,000 a month, it can be surged into over 1 million a month without going into wartime production.

As for Israel, US didn't support a lot to Israel either, because IDF uses their own stuff, what US did is replenish the projectile used in Arrow and Iron Dome, both of which were only material and technological support, US didn't make Arrow interceptor or Iron Dome projectile.

Again, just look at the past Ukraine and Israel bill and you will see, both together are about 80 billions and it was supposed to cover til FY2025, so it's virtually just 40 billion a year, that's 1/5 of the operational budget for US in Afghanistan in a single year........This won't deplete the US combat power.......

From your response, I think the translation software is off on some of the wording, or rather, we are defining certain situations using words that we don't use.

I tried to explain what I meant with more statements:
About the Russian-Ukrainian war. We are in agreement. The U.S. is not fully helping Ukraine.
Through my sources:
The U.S. exchanged Ukrainian resources and land by giving Ukraine a lot of aid in the Russo-Ukrainian war. (Let's ignore for a moment the weight that this aid carries in terms of US national power)
From a purely economic standpoint, the U.S. is actually making a business deal. When these deals are over, the U.S. will gain enormous wealth. It will greatly enhance the power of the United States. But this outcome presupposes: these deals will be completed successfully. If the war does not go the way the U.S. intended, or if Ukraine fails to fulfill the promises in the deal, i.e., the U.S. does not actually get the resources and the land, it will be a failed deal. That's the risk of the deal. Whether China or Russia acquiesces or interferes with the deal will be the biggest risk factor.

However, America's NATO allies suffered greatly from the war. The disruption of oil pipelines has led to a serious energy crisis in Europe, where countries have had to spend more money to buy energy from the United States, as well as Russian oil transiting through India. At the same time, these countries supported Ukraine with a large number of active weapons and equipment, and again spent money on new weapons and equipment from the United States. The essence of these phenomena is that the US is harvesting its own allies .............
As we observe through economic activities, many European countries are getting closer to China economically. They will still have a lot of opposition to China at the political and diplomatic level, but the economic activities below the table are moving forward .............
The most important factor for the U.S. to be the world's policeman is to have a large number of “allies”. But now these “allies” seem to be doing something quietly .............

Meanwhile, the economic and technological war between China and the United States is still ongoing. Of course, there have been tentative actions at the military level.

In the case of the Russo-Ukrainian war, China will not intervene in that war until the US is massively committed. China's attitude and objective is simple: Russia cannot collapse. Any outcome beyond that is acceptable to China. But the US is different. This determines how China and the U.S. will respond to the aftermath of this war. It is unlikely that the US will achieve the outcome it wants with these current investments.

My analysis: the US will continue to invest more in Ukraine. China will continue to wait and see. China will continue to focus on building up its own national strength in preparation for a future head-to-head war between the U.S. and China.

This is a analysis of the current national development of China and the United States.