Probably 10 or 15 minutes work

[tartare]

Those of you warriors outside this great sunburnt land may struggle to see the video - but I think you'll be able to read the transcript of the story. (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2016/10/03/4547521.htm)
Very interesting piece on ABC featuring retired US Admiral Dennis Blair, ex DNI (and yes, I know he's controversial and only served for 15 months - but those of you who don't like Obama probably wouldn't have any issue with that).
What stood out for me was this quote r.e Chinese facility on Scarborough Shoal:

"In serious, serious war fighting ah neutralizing it it's probably 10 or 15 minutes' worth of worth of work."

It's a good reminder of US war-fighting superiority... amid all the media hype we forget how powerful they really still are.
Many (including me) comfort ourselves with the belief that neither nation wants war.
But Blair is of the view that war with China is almost inevitable, and both countries are being driven towards it by inexorable historical and cultural forces.
I found myself wondering under what circumstances the US might take out one facility or all, without striking the mainland.
And would China strike back - and how?

[ShotOne]

For sure, to "take out" this reef/island would be easy enough. But to what possible benefit? Particularly, why do so on behalf of the Philippines when their President is being so openly insulting to his US counterpart, even talking of buying his weapons in Moscow?

[tartare]

Fair point - but I got a really strong sense for some reason that taking out the some or all of the artificial reefs on their own might factor into planning for some of the scenarios.

[ShotOne]

No doubt, but rather than an example of US war-fighting superiority, it typifies the lack of thought behind how that superiority is deployed. It may be true that Scarborough Shoal could dropped back below sea level in fifteen minutes but the political and economic fallout would ensue for the rest of the century. And for what? To back a territorial claim of one group of Orientals who don't particularly like us over a different group who don't either?

[Lonewolf_50]

For sure, to "take out" this reef/island would be easy enough. But to what possible benefit? Particularly, why do so on behalf of the Philippines when their President is being so openly insulting to his US counterpart, even talking of buying his weapons in Moscow?
We are still allied with the French despite the insults slung our way since DeGaulle was in office. We are still allied with the British despite their habit of piss taking ...


In the larger picture, it doesn't matter if the person of the President of the PI is prone to insult. Our nation generally prefer to maintain good relations. Autocrats come and autocrats go, but geography is forever, and trade almost is.

[onetrack]

It's highly unlikely the U.S. would ever resort to a first strike, to set off a war.

What is of concern, is if warlike action was undertaken (by the U.S.) due to misinformation, or faulty intelligence.

Where have we seen that, in recent times, hmmm? :rolleyes:

[sandiego89]

I see this a just an honest assessment of targeting IF it got to a serious shooting war. War planners make assessments of targets and update these regularly. It is good planning to do so, and I am sure they pour over the images of every new building, apron and expansion of these islands. The US could use a variety of methods, with TLAM being an obvious part of the mix.

[Buster Hyman]

He also said something about them being of little strategic value, or something like that, because they were so isolated from China.

Now, if the Phillipines & everyone else were serious about the court decision, then they should apply sanctions & cancel any debt to China! That'd set the cat amongst the Peking ducks! :E

[West Coast]

ShotOne

No doubt, but rather than an example of US war-fighting superiority, it typifies the lack of thought behind how that superiority is deployed. It may be true that Scarborough Shoal could dropped back below sea level in fifteen minutes but the political and economic fallout would ensue for the rest of the century. And for what? To back a territorial claim of one group of Orientals who don't particularly like us over a different group who don't either?


There's no lack of thought. The bombers aren't airborne, the missiles aren't being aimed, the Marines aren't steaming towards the islands. It's an official who's in the position to know simply stating fact. Don't extrapolate that out into something it's not.

Sinking the shoal is an act of war which means political and economic consequences have been determined by one or both parties to be secondary to military needs.

Fighting a war with political and economic consideration of targeting has been shown not to work.

[Fonsini]

I don't see the US going to war with China over pretty much anything, especially not some sandbars in the South China Sea.

[tartare]

Exactly WestCoast, Sandie.
It seemed such a specific reference to timing that it really jumped out at me. Obvious I suppose on reflection, but interesting to run the scenarios none the less.
As I'm sure people in secure rooms are doing right now.
I hope you're right Fonsini.

[KiloB]

So only about twice as long as taking out a Carrier then?
KB

[PersonFromPorlock]

Any military action against China has to be balanced against the fact that they are the source of much of our retail stock-in-trade. We could presumably hold in the face of the Chinese, but could we hold in the face of the Chamber of Commerce?

[Stanwell]

Quite so, PFP.
Where would we be without their fine manufactures?
And .. in the case of Oz, their "investment" in our real estate and key infrastructures?

[ShotOne]

"...just an honest assessment of targeting.." Right. Even if that's so, it certainly won't have been read that way in Beijing. Any more than yesterdays Russian "reminders" of the range and capabilities of their Syrian-based S300 and S400 missile systems.

[recceguy]

US thought the same when they started that little business in Vietnam....

[onetrack]

Well, for a start, if the Chinese were knocked out by the U.S., our Aussie troops would be running around naked within weeks. :)

Chinese get contract to manufacture Australian Army uniforms (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-13/new-army-uniforms-would-be-triple-cost-if-made-in-australia/7840806)

[DirtyProp]

That could have some devastating consequences...

http://www.wonderslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Austrailian-woman-on-the-frontline.jpg

[GlobalNav]

How long would it take to knock out Russian SAM's in Syria if they are ever used against coalition aircraft?

[Fonsini]

About the same length of time it took to knock out Russian SAMs in Vietnam.