Scenario - War in the China Sea

[Korto]

It's the year 2020, and we're nearing the end of the first Trump presidency. Due to building Chinese military strength, and Trump diplomacy over the four years, the relationship between the USA and China is very tense, to say the least. There have been actions over the last months by both sides that have been provocative, and a lot of sabre-rattling.
But now China has just shot down a US spy plane; the pilot was killed. China claims that it was flying in Chinese air space, and has supplied radar data apparently showing it. The US denies this and claims the data is fabricated, but refuses to show any of its own data, claiming security concerns.

President Trump, heavily down in the polls and wanting to be re-elected, has just authorised military action against China.

The US aim is to secure US primacy in the China (South and East) for the foreseeable future (30 to 50 years at least).
The Chinese aim is to prevent this. Ideally, to topple the US as the lone supreme power in the area, but they'll be happy with a draw as a technical victory.

Trump's aim is to be re-elected.

What happens?

[Sea Skimmer]

A successful surprise strategic nuclear strike on China is the only real way to carry out that goal. Otherwise at some point the Chinese would just pop a nuke off at some and demand negotiations, they have a limited strategic force, backed up bya much bigger Pacific theater wide threat, for this purpose.

So perhaps a more interesting scenario would be what happens if TRUMP instead orders something more rational and likely even for him, of firing fifty Tomahawks at one of the Chinese NOn Mobile Offshore Bases or NOMOBs as I shall now acronymificate them. This would then....go somewhere with Trump still trying to get reelected, but not direct at NUKE NUKE NUKE.

[Titan Uranus]

Has Trump spent the last 4 years investing heavily in missile defense without a Chinese response?

[Korto]

The 30 to 50 thing too ambitious, huh? I was a bit worried about that, but I was trying to think of what the military might think would make this escapade worthwhile. It was only after I submitted it I realised I couldn't personally think of any way to do it that wouldn't involve nukes, but I'm a DM from way back, so I decided to rely on the standard solution. See what the players come up with, and if they come up with something clever, pretend that's what I meant.

Anyway, we'll go with Skimmer's suggestion. Trump has just ordered one of the NOMOBs destroyed in retaliation.
However China would not want one of their assets to be able to be destroyed with impunity, or to give the impression the US can just get away with whatever they want. They would prefer to make a fight out of it. Their aim would be to make the US reluctant to try this again.

The US and Chinese assets are whatever they're likely to have in the area in four years time, EXCEPT China has modestly accelerated their buildup over the last couple of years in response to the poor diplomatic situation.
In the absence of that information, just what they have there now.

Neither side wants to start a nuclear war over this. They both want to keep it conventional and contained. China, however, as the defender, has more freedom and diplomatic cover for the use of nuclear weapons if their homeland is threatened. The US is of course aware of this.

[Ralin]

China, however, as the defender, has more freedom and diplomatic cover for the use of nuclear weapons if their homeland is threatened. The US is of course aware of this.

I find myself very skeptical of the idea that diplomatic blowback will be a major concern of an US administration once we get to the point of one side deciding to use nuclear weapons. If China (who I remind who has consistently affirmed a no first use policy on the subject) attacks the US or its forces with nuclear weapons then the US is going to respond in kind unless doing so is flat out unfeasible, no matter how in the right China was to do it. And by unfeasible I mean "would lead to the US being nuked into submission itself." Which I'm pretty sure China can't do since they're supposed to have what, a couple dozen or so nuclear missiles?

[mr friendly guy]

If the US spy plane really was in Chinese airspace, it must have gotten real close to China, far closer than the disputed territories in the SCS. Unless the US has decided that artificial islands in the SCS which started off as above tide structures (albeit barely above tide structures) are really Chinese possessions (as opposed to being neutral in regards to who owns what in the SCS), in which case their entitled airspace (due to being above tide structures) is Chinese airspace.

Otherwise it will be interesting for Trump to explain why its so damn close to the Chinese mainland as opposed to the SCS.

[Sea Skimmer]

The 30 to 50 thing too ambitious, huh?

You're asking for the US to at once set out to not only destroy the great majority of Chinese sea-air power, but also bomb flat all the factories and shipyards building that stuff and cripple their power and transport systems so they can't even start rebuilding for years. Your asking for WW2 levels of bombing damage. The whole point of having nuclear weapons is you no longer must submit to such things.

In a conventional war the first question would be if Japan was involved or not, because without those bases the US needs to physically wait a while to do anything. Also can TRUMP VICTORY PLAN involve invading the Philippines to build airfields on offshore islands of the locals like it or not? Gaum is far away and likely to be crippled for a time by Chinese attacks. It is within easy range of existing Chinese bombers, they don't need any pesky ballistic missiles to do this.

[Zaune]

On a side note, how many nuclear weapons does China actually have? I seem to recall reading somewhere that it's something like eighty to a hundred SLBM warheads in the 250kt range and a couple of dozen tactical ones.

Is that actually enough to permanently cripple the United States economically or militarily, much less both?

[K. A. Pital]

On a side note, how many nuclear weapons does China actually have? I seem to recall reading somewhere that it's something like eighty to a hundred SLBM warheads in the 250kt range and a couple of dozen tactical ones.

Actually China has 60 SLBM tops, of which under 50 constitute credible deterrent, perhaps a tad more than that (unless the Type 094 commissioning schedule has been rapidly brought forward). It also has around 50-60 ICBMs with the necessary range to hit targets outside immediate vicinity, of which less than half would have the necessary range to hit targets in the US.

Is that actually enough to permanently cripple the United States economically or militarily, much less both?

Nuclear weapons, if applied with a good strategy, can definetely cripple the US economically - if you mean its peacetime consumption levels going to shit, the entire nation being transferred to a war footing and the like. It is not enough to wipe out the US militarily, for that you need a deterrent of Soviet levels.

Hope China realizes this sooner than later and churns out 50-70 gigatons of nukes to make sure no warmonger dumbasses across teh Pacific get the idea to attack it.

China needs to find its Dr. Teller sooner than later if it wants to survive in a future where the US feels it is losing its grip on the world:
https://in.rbth.com/opinion/2016/01/05/ ... omb_556351

With clinical detachment, Teller illustrated the power of his doomsday weapon: “A 10,000 megaton weapon, by my estimation, would be powerful enough to set all of New England on fire. Or most of California. Or all of the UK and Ireland. Or all of France. Or all of Germany. Or both North and South Korea. And so on.” We are talking just one bomb.

When the then chairman of the General Advisory Committee (GAC) of the US Atomic Energy Commission, Israel I. Rabi, heard about Teller’s 10 gigaton proposal, he is reported to have said: “It would have been a better world without Teller.”

[Zaune]

Nuclear weapons, if applied with a good strategy, can definetely cripple the US economically - if you mean its peacetime consumption levels going to shit, the entire nation being transferred to a war footing and the like.

That might actually meet Trump's definition of "winning".