F-35Bs…West Philippine Sea

Strike first, and ask forgiveness, if necessary. Wuhan city would be a popular target.

 

The world has been through this before, rattling sabers against China--during and after the Korean War. Do you know the origin of the "paper tiger" comment? Chairman Mao made it to Prime Minister Nehru. The U.S. General MacArthur was calling for a nuclear strike on Red China. (Instead, MacArthur was removed.) What Mao meant, he explained, is that China could well afford to lose "ten million people". (Unlike, say, Japan at the end of WWII.) So his meaning was something like, "Hit me with your best shot." But his strategy did set China back, more than the potential loss of population. Attempting to decentralize industry, he launched the disastrous Great Leap Forward, in which several times ten million died of starvation. And in addition, the countryside was deforested (not to mention buildings and furniture burned) in attempting to make pig iron and steel at the village level. Yet, it must be said that China recovered. And who is in trouble now?

 

There lies the error. Don't threaten dictatorships with killing people - they don't care. Destroy every port, every significant airfield, every power station, even piece of infrastructure which is not easy to replace quickly but is crucial (including miles of major highways), every factory, make their farmland radioactive. Make their country descend into decay - put them back 20, 30, 50 years. That is the threat which will make them think - they care nothing for people.

 

It is true that dictatorships only care about their people to the extent that the population does not revolt against the leadership.

In the old days a military had to march into a country from the outside. In this day and age we can target the dictatorship directly. No need to waste effort on the population and infrastructure. Target the leadership buildings and where the leadership goes next.

 

Excuse my common sense approach in these matters, but all out war with conventional and/or nuclear weapons between major world powers seems to me to be something none of us should wish for, and also something none of these countries will actually engage in.
Sanctions, sure. Covert actions like cyber warfare, sure. Bombs and rockets, no way.
Don't make the mistake of comparing today's nuclear bombs with Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Devastating as they were, they're like baby toys compared to the destructive power of today's nukes. I assume none of you proponents of obliterating China remembers how large swaths of Europe couldn't harvest vegetables in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 because of fall out / radiated dust clouds, or more recently, how many people were displaced in Japan after the Fukushima meltdown, or longer ago, how the USA narrowly escaped disaster at Three Mile Island in 1979.
Please, let's keep everyone's toys in the pram, much safer.
Yes, China is on a long term path of exerting more influence on the world stage; their nine dash line claims in the South China Sea are only one venture on that path; the Belt and Road Initiative represents countless other attempts.
While the former is indeed breaching international law and as such should draw strong reactions from the international community, the latter is in many ways comparable with the Marshall plan after WW2, in the sense that the USA gained strong allied ties in return for their help to a devastated Europe after the war, and China is merely trying to achieve something similar now.
So no, their efforts are in no way selfless, and the West may be watching with trepidation, but to expect the most populous nation on the planet to keep looking inward as their economy is on the verge of overtaking the USA seems naive.

 

I know you are more optimistic than I am - but I think it is indeed VERY likely and just below is only one reason why.

These are attacks on countries by foreign states and could easily reach the point of trying to disable weapons systems - at what point do you get to before you respond? AFTER your deterrence has been eliminated?

I don't - that is why I think China will back down when faced with 1000 of these big boys. One to sink each carrier?

I remember it well - but standing up to bullies has risks. Fortunately my ancestors knew the risks of fighting back against Germany in WW2 instead of capitulation (and enslavement). A peace treaty would have been easier, but worthless, as Chamberlain found out (to the World's cost).

Hitler breached International Laws and then put young kids in gas chambers. Pity no one stopped him earlier.

 

The leadership goes into hiding! Just try to find them - but every piece of infrastructure is on Google maps! Anyway, one leader down, next leader takes over, etc. One huge port destroyed and radioactive - what then?

 

MAD (mutual assured destruction).
That's the answer to your what then, and also the reason none of that madness will happen.

 

Believe me, there are no essential weapons systems, and especially not nuclear weapons systems, that in any way shape or form rely on the internet for any function. Obviously you don't want such systems vulnerable to cyber attacks.
But, cyber warfare could cripple a nation or alliance in other devastating ways. Financial markets, banks, electricity grids, and whatever else is probably quite vulnerable, despite valiant attempts to protect them.

The biggest problem however might well be to determine with absolute certainty which opponent is behind any serious cyber attack.
Also, please don't think about these things in a good guys / bad guys fashion. Nobody is going to admit anything, but if suddenly the Chinese have serious problems in any of these high profile targets it might very well be celebrated as a success in some western capital.