Nothing is law until it is enforced. we allow Chinese ships in such scenario then what ? Get bombed ? Depending on countries size and power they either obey or ignore. Indonesia is big enough to simply ignore, because while we can't stand toe to toe. If we're to be harmed physically we could just adjust our policy by allowing Chinese planes to fly from here or allowed their military installations.
It is sufficient for the US to convince the Philippines and Malaysia to be on their side and allow US aircraft to use their airfields, and together with Japan, China is basically sealed.
I really don’t see how China could win such a war, because they have no real friends in Asia, and nobody wants to see them becoming too powerful.
Also intentional blocking of trade will hurt mostly U.S allies which depended their livelihood on trade and exports like Singapore, Japan and South Korea.
If it comes to a hot war between US and China, the mentioned countries would be happy to see China defeated and economic pain would be less important.
Not to mention the US does not have enough hulls to police the entire global shipping while at the same time having to face China. USN planners will have to divide its warships ships for:
- Homeland ballistic missile defense
- Policing waters not just Indo-Pac but the the drug trade like in the Carribean as well
- Escorting U.S carriers
- Escorting US supplies coming from CONUS towards FOB in Asia
- War patrol
- Defending forward island like Guam
China otoh while (at the moment) is smaller, does not have so many tasks divided in a such a broad category of missions. The USN is still king, but its overworked and overstretched and they themselves admit this.
While you have valid points here, keep in mind that it is sufficient for the US to block a few chocking points like the Panama channel, the Suez, the Strait of Hormuz or the Strait of Malacca to exert a lot of control over long distance trade. For proximity to China, it needs the assistance of Malaysia, Philippines and Japan, and the seas around China are basically closed.
Also, the US can get additional huls from its allies, like Japan, South Korea, Australia, UK or France.
Really ? the German army of WW2 are an army of parades too, yet the took France in a Month, devastate most of Europe and 1/4th of Russia. you're oversimplifying things based on popular assumption.
Europeans were hopping from one war to another during that time, so basically nobody lacked military experience. WW2 started only 21 years after the end of WW1, and there were plenty of other conflicts in between, like the Spanish civil war or Italy’s wars in Africa.
The Imperial Japanese too shows extraordinarily professional conduct of war despite being non democratic and fascist.
History shows that fascist (right wing authoritarian) and democratic countries tend to outperform communist (left wing authoritarian) countries when it comes to war. The ratio of kills in every recent war has the socialist/communist side losing a lot more people than their democratic or fascist counterparty. This is because communism favors corruption, bureocracy and doesn’t reward merit.
I see u like to use examples that suits your intent. Iraq and Russian failure in Desert Storm and Ukraine are a result of very different failure and most are not applicable to the naval environment of Indo-Pac.
The closest analogy to the Chinese now is Japan in early 20th century in its war against Russia, and especially the case study of the nascent Imperial Japanese Navy (Kaigun) and the established Imperial Russia Navy.
Russia has a long history of failing to defend its power status whenever confronted with a strong opponent.
But remember that:
1) Japan couldn’t win the naval war against the US
2) Japan is now on US side
The PLAN and PLAAF is designed ground up to counter the likes of which the USN and USAF operates in the Pacific and they got help from Western aviators and experts working for them.
And the Moskva cruiser was nicknamed the “carrier killer” by the Russians, because it was designed to counter US aircraft carriers. However, it ended up on the bottom of the Black Sea because of some coastal missiles from Ukraine.
While China may be preparing on how to sink US warships and how to counter US aircraft, the reality of war may prove very differnt from their planning. Like a famous guy once said, “everyone has a plan until it is punched in the face”.
The Chinese military might not be as refined as the overall US military but its quite close it doesn't matter. And they could actually afford losses, the same way the U.S could afford losses in WW2 and Japan can't. Because their industrial output is just bigger.
We are only assuming it is quite close. So far, there is no recent conflict where we can see how the Chinese military operates.
As for the industrial output, that’s another problem for China, because China could be easily hit by missiles and its industrial base degraded in such a war because of its proximity to the conflict, while the US industrial base will sit safely far behind the battle lines.
So it will not be 100% China will win, and neither its going to be easy for the US as well.
It would not be easy for sure, but there are only two possible outcomes to such a war: US victory in a conventional war or nuclear war where everybody loses.
I'm pretty sure I've answered this and why you can't rely on assumptions that China will starve. But you choose to ignore and stay ignorant instead.
While they may not starve in case of a war, their food security will surely be affected. Here’s an interesting article that explains how China is becoming more dependent on food imports:
China has so far been able to feed its 1.4 billion people, but climate change and a dependence on imports could pose challenges.
www.cfr.org