The question is, is President Xi willing to risk military conflict to enforce whatever new lines he draws on the map? I don't think he is. As we saw the air zone China drew that overlapped Korea, Japan and Taiwan, it was promptly ignored by all countries and when the US stealth bombers were flying China was silent.
An actual combat that results in Chinese loss would be detrimental to the continuity of Xi's party and the Communist Party itself. The risk is far too great for the small gain it gets. Chinese leadership operates on a cost/benefit analysis, I don't think anything has changed.
So the only logical conclusion is that Xi, along with his anti-corruption campaign to take out his foes, is using brinkmanship to further his popularity and distract people from internal problems that could lead to massive unrest. Economic downturn would certainly be a threat and war drumming has been a common political tool used by many different countries at different points in history.
A military conflict that would be launched by China so far away from it's coastline makes no sense where US has dozens of nearby bases in different countries and logistic support on it's own and from host countries to sustain a prolonged naval warfare. If there was a war, China should pick it's coastlines where it has anti-access/area denial weapons (allegedly) and opposing force would not risk their assets. It would be a nightmare in terms of logistics for PLAN if they did launch some provocation so far away from the mainland. The island building is a clever way to provoke without risking it's military.
Unless they're going to swim or row, those 700 million humans who could fight if needed don't do much in a naval war.
The risk is, if the Chinese pick a naval fight and their navy gets pummeled, it's a PR disaster. That's a risk for the leadership, not so much for the country.
That's 700 million potential factory workers, military support staff, and soldiers, and the factories are already built, US companies paid for many of them.
Logistics. I don't think people realize that to move around army of even 10% of that 2.3 million, you require significant logistic support (sort of like upkeep in Warcraft 3). You then have to question which country has the access to most of the world's ports and bases outside of their own. Most importantly, you need to be on good terms and friends with these host countries. This is what China is going up against. A huge military resting at home means jack all if you can't mobilize it and upkeep it.
Mao had this approach: "Advance at the point of the bayonet. If you meet resistance, back off." That is, take whatever others won't actively defend, and keep taking until you run into something that they will.
This seems to still be China's approach, at least in this area.
China's approach has a lot to do with historical context and some really hard lessons. Like what happens if you don't take the necessary measures to make sure you're strong and strategically positioned so other people can't blockade you. In case you don't know what happens: you get colonized, other countries kidnap your heads of state until you give them land concessions, and you get pummeled into accepting opium imports. Don't think it's just U.K. and France. The U.S. is guilty too.
It's kind of puzzling regarding the Chinese plans for the South China Sea. They are antagonizing many of their neighbors there that are normally friendly or neutral to them in most respects. If China persists in making these territorial claims in the South China Sea, how will they enforce it? They don't have any safe harbors in the area for their Navy to go to in case of a war, while the US has bases and allies throughout the region. As far as I can tell, the Chinese government usually acts family pragmatic with regards to it's foreign policy, though I'll admit that Xi does seem to be a different type of leader than their previous premiers.
Read that last week, it's a about a future war between the US and the Chinese, it's bordering on sci-fi but interesting nonetheless and a good read.
Interestingly it posits a future where the US economy is in major trouble as the reason why the US Navy has been severely downsized, they had to do that since the current US Navy vs the current PLA Navy while horrific wouldn't be remotely a fair fight.
I don't think so unless nukes is all they had (ex. North Korea). The first side to threaten nuclear attack would be effectively declaring military defeat.
An actual combat that results in Chinese loss would be detrimental to the continuity of Xi's party and the Communist Party itself. The risk is far too great for the small gain it gets. Chinese leadership operates on a cost/benefit analysis, I don't think anything has changed.
So the only logical conclusion is that Xi, along with his anti-corruption campaign to take out his foes, is using brinkmanship to further his popularity and distract people from internal problems that could lead to massive unrest. Economic downturn would certainly be a threat and war drumming has been a common political tool used by many different countries at different points in history.
A military conflict that would be launched by China so far away from it's coastline makes no sense where US has dozens of nearby bases in different countries and logistic support on it's own and from host countries to sustain a prolonged naval warfare. If there was a war, China should pick it's coastlines where it has anti-access/area denial weapons (allegedly) and opposing force would not risk their assets. It would be a nightmare in terms of logistics for PLAN if they did launch some provocation so far away from the mainland. The island building is a clever way to provoke without risking it's military.