Such a situation is very difficult to quantify regarding war. The perpetrators of such things may fight very hard to keep the gravy train going. May exit quickly, as they are of low character and will simply use their wealth to exit the danger of battle. They may have damaged the fighting ability of the forces they have screwed over. But that is hard to gauge as they will have hidden the extent and effects. If they have not been seen as greedy self serving creeps by their underlings, they may rally them to fight against their own forces. That is less likely. It is a very wild card.
Bumped.
An earlier thread on the growing Chinese navy: China Wants Aircraft Carriers-How Long To Develop Naval Air Arm?
And see:
Problem for China is that aircraft carriers don’t do it much good. They would provide relatively little airpower while being sunk easily.
Knew a professor who was a naval officer before getting his PhD. He said in a big war a carrier would not last long.
Also he was flying and was waiting to board a navy plane. He got out of line to get coffee and missed the flight. The flight crashed with no survivors. His daughter played bass for White Zombie
On the subject of aircraft carriers it’s worthy of note the Chinese carriers, at least those currently in service, are vastly inferior to our 10 Nimitz Class ships as well as the new Ford Class ships. All our carriers are nuclear. The Chinese ships are conventionally powered. Further, the Chinese carriers do not have catapults. This is very significant as without catapults their aircraft are very limited w/regard to fuel and ordnance capacity.
They tried to bully Vietnam several years back. It didn’t go so well.
Though that was back in 1979, at a time when Vietnam could still claim one of the world’s most battle-hardened armies and large stocks of relatively recently acquired matériel while the PLA was being rebuilt from the Cultural Revolution. Today Vietnam would be at a disadvantage vis-a-vis numbers and assets and neither side has real peer-to-peer war experience for over a generation.
And you base that on what exactly?
The thing is, we just don’t know how carrier groups will do in a missile environment. There have been plenty of exercises and simulations, but you can’t really know how weapons will actually work until you use them in combat. Modern naval warfare is just a big black hole of ignorance, and it’ll remain that way until the shooting starts.
Agreed. Bit like no one really knew how Dreadnoughts would fare until Jutland.
I think suicide drones are actually a more dangerous development for surface ships. They are cheap and accurate Send a swarm after a group. Even if most are shot down, the few hits would be devastating to the ships sensors and systems. Then send the big guised missiles to finish them off.
And not just carrier groups and naval warfare…
We don’t know how any war will be handled in the new missile environment.
Basically, everything, everywhere is vulnerable to massive attack, which there’s very little way to defend against.
It’s a new world, and nobody is really prepared for it.
Some of the more salient points -
Most armies and navies are always preparing to fight the previous war. hence, large ship convoys, etc.
The most obvious need in an all-out relatively matched war is air superiority. As we saw with Iraq (not an even match) once air domination is established, the pounding can proceed with impunity. As the Falklands demonstrated 40 years ago, even back then tech like self-guided missiles and highly maneuverable aircraft meant any WWII era ship or ground installation was a sitting duck. (Belgrano, anyone?) And true, an all-out war will be with what the comabatants bring to the table. Air strikes and destroyed missile sites and convoys will happen in a matter of days, with no time to rebuild; Unless, like Iran and Iraq, they both take each other’s air power out and devolve to ground war.
China has a huge military - army and now navy. Other than Taiwan, it is most likely good only for threatening. Their almost-equal rival neighbours, India and Russia, are well insulated from them. It would be trivial to remove passable roads between India and Tibet. Taking the long way through Burma/Myanmar would be equally problematic, any invasion force being a sitting duck. Russia? The distance would mean maybe they could take the eastern Siberia regions, but then would have to defend them. As mentioned, any attempt at Japan or Taiwan would drag in US forces and the USA is probably best equipped to defend from afar and take out troop carriers. Plus - even if they attacked, say, India - how likely that the USA or Europe would jump in to help shore up India’s air defences? (I guess it depends what the argument was about and who was being unreasonable, but I can’t see the west letting China take over India, and any occupation would be a nightmare.)
The psychology I suppose is - China is not an expansionist world empire builder like the western powers; but they do have a chip on their shoulder due to history. The humiliation by the west in the past 200 years was just one of many cycles. When the central government is weak, chaos and rebellion cause the outer provinces to break away from the central government. Strong and powerful governments and leaders go outward and bring the stray provinces back into the fold. Thus they will not concede areas that have sometimes been provinces and have sometimes been independent countries - like Taiwan, like Tibet, etc. they demonstrate they are a strong and powerful government by taking and claiming the edges of the empire. Hence their singular obsession with claiming Taiwan or Tibet or Hong Kong, about arguing over rocks in the sea between Japan and China, over claiming the territory of the South China Sea. To negotiate or concede anything less than full ownership is a sign of a weak and crumbling government. Face will not allow that.
OTOH, overseas empire or not, they have expanded their influence especially into Africa, where their money can buy “friends” by providing aid to countries that recent USA policy abandoned. They have poured a lot into developing local natural resources, which conveniently are what their economy needs to keep producing. Depending on how they handle these relationships diplomatically, this may buy them friends that they may find advantageous to defend with their fleet and abundant military manpower. Or… they may learn the same lesson as western imperialists learned in Africa.
What is perhaps their Achilles heel is the economy. The wisdom goes that China came to a tacit understanding after Tien Amen - leave running the country to the CPC and they will make the populace much better off. So far, with a few hiccups, it’s working. The government jumps through hoops to ensure that the economy does not flounder whatever macroeconomic mistakes come to light, and they do go on periodic binges of punishing the most blatant corruption. (For example, when large urban developments were a thing over a decade ago, they had to pass laws forbidding the local governments and their cronies from taking land by coercion. Riots were happening over egregious examples of this. So the biggest threat to China is simply a serious economic downturn that they can’t fake-spend their way out of. Real revolutions happen when things start getting worse.
And that’s the risk to its neighbours. China, like the USA and Europe have, might see a war as a convenient distraction to refocus public opinion when the domestic situation gets volatile.
Nitpick, but the General Belgrano was lost to torpedoes, not missiles. Otherwise I agree with your general point 
.
What’s more, the Mark VIII torpedoes the British submarine HMS Challenger used to sink the Belgrano were themselves of basic WWII design. So it might almost have been 1942 and not 1982, but for the sub itself being a nuke.
Even in WWII big battleships were sitting ducks; they tried to not go anywhere without a support flotilla to protect them from subs and aircraft. Presumably a big advantage of more modern nuclear subs is that they were much harder to detect.
The story was that the top brass at the junta got into a screaming match, with the admiral saying the Army could not tell him what to do. So against their advice, he ordered the Belgrano out to sea so the Navy could share in the glory of taking on the British. Mission accomplished.
Everybody get outta the ocean!
That was one of the most convincing April write-ups I’ve ever read. A bit more of dampening down of details by that author and it would have been totally swallowable.
I don’t think you can really meaningfully say “aside from the nukes”. Any direct war between the great powers is quite likely to go nuclear… which is why the great powers have avoided direct war for the past 75 years.
As for indirect wars, that depends a lot on the territory chosen, but in the most recent two indirect wars between China and the US, they won one and drew the other. They probably wouldn’t fare nearly so well in a war in the western hemisphere, but then again, they know that, and so avoid the western hemisphere.