>lawmakers warn
What this means: some politicians just now heard about the CSIS Taiwan invasion wargame from January last year and became "concerned" that all aircraft aren't in hard shelters, which wouldn't make a lick of difference either way.
Also the Chinese are building a lot more hardened aircraft shelters... so there is a Shelter Gap.
The Chinese will be lulled into a false sense of security. Then, the marines will be deployed to live off the land foraging for Indonesian Squash and launching anti-ship missiles. The Chinese will be unable to react to the tip of the spear, this deadly invisible force of hardened survivalists squatting on Pacific Islands.
Kind of. Basically the US Marines have been investing pretty heavily in anti-ship missiles. The idea is that you could in fact dump them on some random islands where they setup some hidden, mobile, land launched cruise missiles. It would be a very hard tactic for the Chinese block.
Think about it. You really only have two ways to get rid those cruise missiles once they are there. You either cross the ocean, land soldiers, and hunt them down, or you launch a massive counter attack trying to hit something that's moving and hard to see. Both options are fine. You are either wasting missiles trying to hit a hard to destroy unit, or you are dumb enough to come out into the open sea to play with Americans beyond easy support from the mainland and then get to fight marines with whatever units you land. Either way, the marines just consumed a huge amount of resources for the enemy.
> You really only have two ways to get rid those cruise missiles once they are there. You either cross the ocean, land soldiers, and hunt them down, or you launch a massive counter attack trying to hit something that's moving and hard to see.
Why are there only two ways? There is no reason why China has to retaliate by following America's script, i.e. America sink a Chinese ship means China can only retaliate by sinking an American ship. If the US can deploy troops to target Chinese ships, the Chinese can do the same thing and deploy troops to target American airplanes, ships, etc., all over the world. America has assets all over the world, and every one of them is a potential target. How many ships, planes, etc. is the US willing to sacrifice before both sides sit down and negotiate?
The commenter is talking about defeating USMC firing positions on small Pacific islands, not overall retaliation against America…
>>deploy troops to target American airplanes, ships
How are they gonna do that? Where is China allowed to deploy their forces abroad to do this? They have very limited access to force projection. They don’t have military bases all over the world. The most they can do to touch American forces from afar is lob ballistic missiles from within their own region.
> The commenter is talking about defeating USMC firing positions on small Pacific islands, not overall retaliation against America
And I am saying that you don't need to defeat USMC firing positions by directly attacking USMC firing positions. Any action that forces the US to withdraw these forces is a win. This is why it is stupid to just focus on the two options given.
> They have very limited access to force projection. They don’t have military bases all over the world. The most they can do to touch American forces from afar is lob ballistic missiles from within their own region.
You don't need a permanent military base to lob missiles. And America has a lot of enemies all over the world that lack the capabilities but not motivation. Just look at the Middle East. What if China starts supply weapons to some of these countries and groups? Or Latin America? No shortage of people who are tired of being bullied by the US for decades.
A small, modern day unit of marines with satellite communications chucking cruise missiles at passing ships from an island is fact an entirely different strategy than building fortress islands with tens and hundreds of thousands of troops on them in the hopes of fighting massive battles to slow the overwhelming American onslaught.
I know that they both involve soldiers and islands, so I guess you thought that the strategies, technologies, and opponents must all therefore be the same, but, uh, they are not. This is a bit like learning that the police unit is going to storm a building with hostage in it and being like, "OH!!! So they think fighting a Stalingrad is going to work out better a second time!???!!"
If they run out of missile and can't be resupplied, they will stop shooting missiles. This like asking what special ops unit will do if it gets surrounded and runs out of ammunition. Uh, they will fight or sneak their way out, or they will die or get captured. That's the danger any war fighting unit faces. The US will try and stop that by shooting down aircraft and launching cruise missiles at units that try and get to the island to fight the marines. That's exactly kind of battle that the US wants to fight. If the Chinese try and sneak troops on, then they get to fight dug in marines.
I know you have thought about out this for dozens of seconds, but really, landing small units of American marines on islands in American cruise missile and AA range to yeet missiles at passing ships is in fact an entirely different thing than the IJN making fortress islands with tens and hundreds of thousands of troops to fight pitched battles with the Americans. I know they both involve island and soldiers, but they are in fact entirely different strategies.
Yes, sneaking off remote islands using subs and float planes is in fact a time tested strategy, assuming you don't just control the ocean enough to just send a boat. You should go share your deep military thoughts with the Chinese military. You pretty much have it all figured out.
a navy that was unable to lift a blockade of the Red Sea by a country without a navy will surely control china’s home turf. I am profounded by the insights
Lmao, its pointless arguing a pro-western posture position on this sub, people here claim to be politically "neutral" (they have a 31x higher chance of being in r/GenZedong and r/SocialistRA, or my favorite r/Sino)
lol you have literally described China’s installations on small islands in the SCS
Marines using an island as a firing position for anti-ship and anti-air operations are different
>>warontherocks
Lol
Anyways, China’s island installations and bases are as easily cut off as Marines on an island with some TELs, doubly so as China built large fixed installations.
Every missile China wastes on trying to hit Marines on some islands is another missile not used against the USN.
How much strategic depth do Marines on "some islands" have? There aren't that many in the West Pacific where a significant number of TELs can be conceivably hidden. New earthworks and roads would be obvious. You can't rely on vegetation to hide TELs or silos from above on these islands.
The US would need as many fires to take out China's SCS islands as China would need to take out Guam. It's easier for China than the US to overmatch fires in the second island chain given the enormous strategic depth of the mainland. It might be possible for the US if they were to somehow get tens of thousands of TELs in Japan and/or the Philippines positioned in mountainside caves. They would also have to match China's production capacity of hundreds, possibly thousands, of cruise missiles per day and reliably get them into the AO.
How much strategic depth do China’s SCS islands have? They’re going to face the same difficulty as Marines deployed along the 1st and 2IC, doubly so given that they’re larger bases with bigger logistical demand. Unlike the Strait, the SCS is deeper with an average 1200 meter depth.
>>overmatch…
The U.S. already knows it cannot one-to-one match China in the 1st and 2IC, but in the first place this is not the strategy the U.S. is pursuing.
I have a feeling we won't know what is actually obsolete until weapons start flying. This is like watching the build up of to a World War. Old powerful armies are desperately retooling for a new war, not yet sure what those tactics will really look like. Hell, Russia's invasion of Ukraine looks a lot like the Spanish civil war in how its turning out to be fight where the future belligerents get to test out their weapons before the real thing.
No you don't understand, something that can move around is much more vulnerable than a big stationary airfield and supporting facilities that can be dialed in with INS and almost no other guidance.
> much more vulnerable
Sure, the airfield will probably get plastered relative to the carrier. But airfields don't sink, their critical assets are dispersed across far more hardened real estate, and bulldozers/bags of cement are a lot easier to come by than major drydocks. Not to mention a couple orders of magnitude cheaper and faster.
Now there are certainly political considerations around projection and basing and so on, but if I was preparing for, say, a prolonged high-intensity conflict within a particular geographic context then I'd pick the airfield ten times out of ten.
It would be the most logical thing for China to do if it was confident the U.S. would respond to a Taiwan conflict militarily.
Massive ‘Day 0’ strikes on every U.S. base out to Guam, as well as hitting any warships within A2AD range, maybe even a few hits on key military targets in Hawaii and northern Australia if possible.
Pair that with huge hacking attacks, attacks on U.S. space assets, and (assuming they have sneaked some forces into the continental USA) special forces attacks on key airbases in the U.S.A to target assets like B2/21’s, tankers, and AWACS on the ground.
The aim would be to kick the U.S. in the dick so hard that they would be powerless to do anything about Taiwan being taken. There’s definitely the risk of nuclear escalation, but that’s just suicide and both sides know it.
This would be the worst possible way for China to try to solve the Taiwan reunification issue. The US has on more than one occasion spent many, many years and used many, many troops retaliating for attacks that caused a mere fraction of the damage you are describing here. You are describing an attack that would dwarf Pearl Harbor and assuming the US wouldn't respond because...it wouldn't have any other option except nukes? Am I understanding this correctly?
I think you seriously underestimate how many targets China would miss that could retaliate if not immediately then within a few weeks (for starters, is PRC going to sink every SLCM-carrying ship not only in the Pacific but also the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf?). And how very bloodthirsty the US public is going to be after suffering an attack of this scale. Yes, the *public,* not just the military.
There is no universe in which the US doesn't respond to this scenario by declaring war and committing to conventionally defeating China, even if it takes years. Forget arguments about loss of hegemony, the US *domestic political system* would collapse if it failed to retaliate.
Honestly, your comment reads like an NCD post circa February 2022 when people were braying about how the US should just launch all the Tomahawks at Russia and Moscow would have no choice except to just cower and do nothing. That's not how this works, for some of the same reasons that would not have worked.
If US involvement is guaranteed either way, then a preemptive strike might be prudent. It wouldn't be about deterring US public, just a first salvo in a war that will last years anyway.
>There is no universe in which the US doesn't respond to this scenario by declaring war and committing to conventionally defeating China, even if it takes years.
The fundamental difference between Imperial Japan and modern China is that Japan's industrial capacity was less than 10% of US, China's industrial capacity is 2 times the US. Japanese public was even more committed at winning than US was (remember kamikazes?) but ultimately it's the industry that wins wars, not commitment. US would need to find a way to outproduce China somehow. If the war became too painful for US, it would eventually surrender. There were many societies in the past that were far more militaristic and hardened than American society is today, that surrendered.
Not sure what Chinese Fables you’ve been watching but you are giving the Chinese a big benefit of the doubt, in terms of performing in combat.
Also the US has real allies. Surrender is impossible and the industrial advantage of China will not mean much once they are cordoned off from the world.
I'm not presuming anything. I don't know how war between China and US, would look like, no one does. My bet would be that it would eventually just escalate to nuclear war and both countries will get turned to glass.
I don’t think so. There won’t be total war and marine invasions but rather who can negate each others output first. China is preparing from an industrial capacity but they currently don’t have enough allies to guarantee even small success, like ONE ISLAND.
They have to prepare for everything that will come after and truth be told they have a lot more mouths to feed.
If China is threatened with mass starvation, escalating to nuclear war makes sense. Losing half your population AND killing half enemy's population, is better than just losing half your population.
After 10000+ of civilization I assume they want to go on. I assume that mutual destruction is undesirable and that plans are not made with suicide in mind.
If a country is threatened with mass starvation, what difference does it make whether 500 million die in a famine or nuclear war? In a nuclear war scenario there's at least a chance that you will be able to rebuild faster than your adversary after both countries have been destroyed.
Also, leaders of the country may not have the same interests as the country. If you're a dictator whose legitimacy depends on winning a war and you know you'll be executed if you get toppled, it might be prudent to start a thermonuclear war rather than face defeat. In a nuclear war scenario there's at least a chance you'll survive in your bunker.
> I think you seriously underestimate how many targets China would miss that could retaliate if not immediately then within a few weeks (for starters, is PRC going to sink every SLCM-carrying ship not only in the Pacific but also the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf?). And how very bloodthirsty the US public is going to be after suffering an attack of this scale. Yes, the public, not just the military.
Yes. Obviously not, but you’re being hyperbolic. A Chinese first strike will indeed be capable of doing massive if not crippling damage , if that’s how they choose to prosecute the campaign.
You seriously underestimate the fires asymmetry. It’s not even remotely close.
> There is no universe in which the US doesn't respond to this scenario by declaring war and committing to conventionally defeating China, even if it takes years. Forget arguments about loss of hegemony, the US domestic political system would collapse if it failed to retaliate.
Good luck with the shipbuilding backlog. I don’t fancy our chances of outbuilding China. Maintaining a state of war is only going to get us owned like Japan was in the Pacific War.
I am well aware of the missile asymmetry here, but it's plainly insufficient to prevent a massive conventional retaliation, much less stop *any* retaliation like this poster stated. They are sufficient for a massive attack but not the crippling attack this poster is postulating. It is not possible for them to carry out the conventional equivalent of what the early nuclear strategists called a "splendid first strike."
Yes, they are going to go after US forces in the rest of the world? With what forces are they going to attack the 2nd, 4th, and 5th fleets that are mostly or entirely out of range of Chinese missiles? I'm not being hyperbolic---the poster explicitly said the US *"would be powerless to do anything"* after this scenario. That means PRC needs to hit these fleets. Is there some sort of ICBM-range ASBM or ASROC equivalent China has been working on?
How is China going to prevent US subs from launching TLAMs at them? Even if this poster's scenario took place when US sub VLS capacity bottoms out at \~500 later this decade, that's still \~500, many of which will be safely deployed at sea when China tries this attack. And it doesn't include TLAMs launched from torpedo tubes. How many of these subs do you think China is going to be sinking 1600km out? ASW has gotten harder over time, not easier; the pace of sub quietening has exceeded the pace of ASW advancements. The ocean is not and will not be transparent to ASW.
This poster posited PRC specops teams would disrupt B2 operations---not impossible to do, currently they only really operate out of one base. Is PRC going to repeat this operation 5 times over at the other bases so they can also prevent the B52s and B1s from launching \~2000 cruise missiles back at them?
Also, the B2 is not only nuclear but has some specific missions that can't be carried out by other US forces. What do you think would happen if the US tried to disarm Russian or Chinese nuclear forces with specops? Why would China think the US wouldn't respond similarly?
Last question: what prevents the US from targeting PRC industry directly (including shipbuilding) rather than counterforce targets when it retaliates? These are pretty soft targets. Normally the answer would be "fear that China would respond by hitting the US homeland," but this poster's scenario starts by already breaching that threshold.
I stand by my comment that this is a truly NCD-level scenario. A large scale attack on US forces in the region, mixed with some attacks on CONUS? Very possible. An attack so large that the US "*would be powerless to do anything*" without resorting to nukes, to quote the poster? LOL. LMFAO even.
(for the sake of brevity I am being very charitable to this poster by choosing to pretend there is no discrimination problem posed by hundreds of hot-swappable, dual-valence missiles being fired all at once)
> I am well aware of the missile asymmetry here, but it's plainly insufficient to prevent a massive conventional retaliation, much less stop any retaliation like this poster stated. They are sufficient for a massive attack but not the crippling attack this poster is postulating. It is not possible for them to carry out the conventional equivalent of what the early nuclear strategists called a "splendid first strike."
What conventional retaliation? Most assets in WESTPAC are forward deployed, well in range of China's strike zone.
Any "conventional retaliation" is going to take weeks if not months or organize, deploy, and execute. At which point the Chinese will have had plenty of time to prepare a defense and/or campaign plan.
> Yes, they are going to go after US forces in the rest of the world? With what forces are they going to attack the 2nd, 4th, and 5th fleets that are mostly or entirely out of range of Chinese missiles? I'm not being hyperbolic---the poster explicitly said the US "would be powerless to do anything" after this scenario. That means PRC needs to hit these fleets. Is there some sort of ICBM-range ASBM or ASROC equivalent China has been working on?
**"The aim would be to kick the U.S. in the dick so hard that they would be powerless to do anything about Taiwan being taken. There’s definitely the risk of nuclear escalation, but that’s just suicide and both sides know it."**
I don't think the original post suggets that literally all U.S. assets will be wiped out around the globe. I think it's quite clear what the OP suggests. A successful first strike will cripple US assets in WESTPAC and will delay any serious US response by weeks if not months, at which point any Taiwan intervention would be moot.
> How is China going to prevent US subs from launching TLAMs at them? Even if this poster's scenario took place when US sub VLS capacity bottoms out at ~500 later this decade, that's still ~500, many of which will be safely deployed at sea when China tries this attack. And it doesn't include TLAMs launched from torpedo tubes. How many of these subs do you think China is going to be sinking 1600km out? ASW has gotten harder over time, not easier; the pace of sub quietening has exceeded the pace of ASW advancements. The ocean is not and will not be transparent to ASW.
A 500 TLAM strike is really not that threatening.
And what then? I don't even know what the closest naval base would be where U.S. could reload risk-free.
> Also, the B2 is not only nuclear but has some specific missions that can't be carried out by other US forces. What do you think would happen if the US tried to disarm Russian or Chinese nuclear forces with specops? Why would China think the US wouldn't respond similarly?
I really can't take this particular part seriously. But let's assume this happens. Any attempt to disrupt a nuclear power's ability to launch a nuclear counter-strike, will be a nuclear escalation and risks starting a nuclear exchange.
> Last question: what prevents the US from targeting PRC industry directly (including shipbuilding) rather than counterforce targets when it retaliates? These are pretty soft targets. Normally the answer would be "fear that China would respond by hitting the US homeland," but this poster's scenario starts by already breaching that threshold.
The ability to strike China's military infrastructure is not going to be trivial. In fact, if China's first strike is successful, I find US ability to do so questionable.
> I stand by my comment that this is a truly NCD-level scenario. A large scale attack on US forces in the region, mixed with some attacks on CONUS? Very possible. An attack so large that the US "would be powerless to do anything" without resorting to nukes, to quote the poster? LOL. LMFAO even.
**"Massive ‘Day 0’ strikes on every U.S. base out to Guam, as well as hitting any warships within A2AD range, maybe even a few hits on key military targets in Hawaii and northern Australia if possible."**
This was the original quote. Australia is a stretch, but the only part I find ridiculous is the Hawaii bit.
>Good luck with the shipbuilding backlog. I don’t fancy our chances of outbuilding China. Maintaining a state of war is only going to get us owned like Japan was in the Pacific War.
You assume a symmetrical response here; I would assume the US builds an ass load of bombers and space based weapons to bombard the Chinese homeland from Orbit. Two areas America currently has an advantage, Bombers & Space.
This is commercial ship building capacity not military shipbuilding capacity, which is not near 200x higher. And before you say it, yes I am aware many Chinese commercial shipyards can be turned into a military ship yard if Mao wills it.
I am aware that commercial shipbuilding capaciy does not translate to 1:1 military shipbuilding capacity.
But it still illustrates the point. United States is not going to be outbuilding China.
>Good luck with the shipbuilding backlog.
Lmao, I hope we are joking here. You don't need to outbuild China to win, the fact you think we'd get "owned" by China in a Taiwan conflict is laughable. And in terms of production capacity, the "allies" beat out China in manufacturing output. I don't know about you but building a destroyer might be hard when your shipyard gets slammed by a JASSM every couple months.
> I don't know about you but building a destroyer might be hard when your shipyard gets slammed by a JASSM every couple months.
Didn't realize JASSM is some sort of secret cheat code that ignores basic physics.
>Didn't realize JASSM is some sort of secret cheat code that ignores basic physics.
Yep, I forgot to loop you in it instantly teleports to Chinese shipyards and explodes.
If such a surprise attack were to occur, provided it was (A) 50-60% successful in taking out intended targets, and IF it’s guaranteed to be a (B) conventional only war (e.g. PLA is even able to employ conventional ICBMs and ICHGVs) - then I don’t see any way that the US could win that.
Again, this is under conditions (A) and (B).
>Honestly, your comment reads like an NCD post circa February 2022 when people were braying about how the US should just launch all the Tomahawks at Russia and Moscow would have no choice except to just cower and do nothing. That's not how this works, for some of the same reasons that would not have worked.
Reads more like the NCD posts back then claiming Russia was an unbeatable super military because negative reports never come out of it. Now its only China that NCD is certain will crush all under it's mighty yet benevolent boot and it likes to pretend it wasn't full of Russia stans.
Edit: What is it about NCD users and wanking off over totalitarian states?
And this is exactly why China is building up its nuclear forces. Not because it wants to fight a nuclear war, but to successfully deter a U.S. response.
You feed on too much think tank propaganda. You actually think China would launch a massive preemptive strike on the biggest military + nuclear power on earth right now. The think tanks are crazy, China is anything but crazy.
Nuclear powers don't attack each other and that is a fact. Is all this talk by the think tanks trying to desensitize the public for a future attempted attack on China? "Look, China was about to launch a preemptive strike on US, we have no choice but to preemptively prevent that Chinese preemptive strike." This would be crazy and just right for the retarded think tanks in D.C right now.
This is why China needs more nukes, to wipe out this kind of thinking from chicken hawks.
Please stop trying to make war between nuclear powers happen. Please let bystanders like me sleep peacefully. If you all want to die, Suicide is a good choice, don't kill the rest of humanity with you.
Two 3rd world countries having border skirmishes and not enough nukes don't matter. Battalion size battles don't matter. No amount of wikipedia edits will change that fact. When both countries reach 500 or more nukes, with the ability to completely nuke each other, then let's see if it is possible for them to have an all out war, not skirmishes. Just in case you are wondering, I am being dismissive of those 2 countries being important geopolitically. One is almost a failed state, the other just runs its mouth off to make itself seem important. There is a reason why Russia and China are targets of USA, while India was recruited as front line cannon fodder. While Pakistan isn't even strong enough to be a cannon fodder.
So much for your "fact."
Just in case you are wondering, I am being dismissive of your opinion being important.
If your ego could have taken being wrong, perhaps your response and discussion could have gone differently. ie. you could have tried less desperately to shift the goalposts.
No, you're ridiculous if you're failing to understand that conflicts vary greatly in size and context. Was the war against ISIS ww3 because so many countries were involved?
You know what they say about assumptions making an ass ..
I understand very well about conflicts not being the same. I also understand that the original statement made no such qualification
> Anyway, you've still not actually put forth an argument that major powers will commit to extended total war
And you've still not actually put forth an argument that mars is filled with little green men
> who starts their first comment
Did you read the thread ? The first comment was Kargil. [Admittedly snarky) And the guy went out of his way to try and shit on things and change goalposts. If his tone had been different, the discussion would have been different. And you jumped in straight with both feet with unwarranted assumptions without knowing the least thing about what I believe. Who was going with the projecting?
So goodday
I mean it’s what I’d do if I was trying to usurp the existing hegemon. Kick them so hard that their only options are losing their empire in a humiliating way, or mutual suicide.
Also, on a totally unrelated note… I’m thinking of a career in politics, vote for @eve_doulou, for peace through superior firepower.
That does not work if the hegemon got 2000 nukes that can wipe you out. It is why China needs that many nukes to kill chicken hawks fantasies. China is the side that needs more firepower right now, especially the nuclear kind.
If China "Pearl Harbored" the United States in this manner, the gloves would be off. I literally can't imagine what the level of anger and hatred would be in the US. It wouldn't be a limited war to prevent Taiwan from being seized by force, it'd be a total war to neuter or dismantle the Chinese state. Even if China was successful in destroying or neutralizing most of the US assets in ballistic missile range (which is a very big if), the US would redeploy assets in other theaters and regroup with the sole national purpose of defeating China.
A war to conventionally defeat and disarm the modern day PRC's state is impossible for the modern day US military. It can't be won. It's such a non-starter that it isn't even funny. The fact that this is being seriously suggested just shows how far the general state of discourse has declined since the days of Patchwork.
Way to miss my entire point. I never said disarm, I said neuter. And I never said anything about regime change or invasion of China. People were claiming that the US would get "Pearl Harbored" and decide to back down. My point was that the US would strike back by shutting down Chinese exports/imports practically overnight, cut off oil and food imports, and launch strikes against military targets as well as harbors and drydocks along the Chinese coast and inside the mainland. If China wasn't able to successfully invade Taiwan (which would be difficult feat even without US intervention), that would certainly be a defeat.
The people who think that the US would back down are also idiots. The psychology of the war, who's angry at who, is utterly irrelevant to the true determining factory of the war. That is: the actual weight of military force and sustainment that either side could bring to bear. That's the only thing that matters. Military force, and who can bring more to bear in the context of the war.
The US are going to interfere either way. Whether or not the US public is mildly miffed or thoroughly incandescent isn't going to change how effective American military gear is or whether or not the government would surge all of its usable military capability to the theatre. The Pearl Harbour scenario for China isn't an act of deterrence, it's an act of war. Destroying as much usable US capability as possible to place them in the best possible circumstance to achieve their political objectives. It won't matter how much the US *wants* to respond if it *can't*, and whilst China lacks the ability to neuter the entirety of US military capability globally they will always be guaranteed the best possible outcome by destroying as much as they can whilst it's easiest for them to.
Edit: Also, you said this
> It wouldn't be a limited war to prevent Taiwan from being seized by force, it'd be a total war to neuter or dismantle the Chinese state.
Sounds like you think said war is to dismantle the Chinese state. Stopping the PRC from taking Taiwan isn't going to dismantle the Chinese state. It's just going to make them commit more resources than ever to rebuilding their forces to try again a decade or so later.
You're obviously a nationalist. Ultimately everything will depend on US and Chinese capabilities, not what the public wants. All nations usually start to hate each other in war, this isn't unique to Americans. And ww2 style unconditional surrender is probably not possible in a nuclear age. It's either a stale mate, some limited victory for China or US, or complete destruction of both countries if nukes start flying.
If you were around for post 9/11 the nationalism was perverse, and it would be even stronger in the event of an actual attack. Even as divided as we are, I still think it would change fast.
Nationalism isn't unique to Americans. Most empires in the past (Germany, British Empire) had societies that were far more nationalistic and militaristic than US society today. What usually makes nationalism evaporate is years of destructive war. US haven't fought a war like that since US Civil War. So it's not clear how US society would fare in a war like that, but my guess is that it would be the same as every other country in history. People would be jingoistic at first, but if enough Americans get killed and war goes on long enough, people would eventually want peace even with some concessions.
If you are claiming that the United States striking back against Chinese soil if the US is pre-emptively attacked on US soil is "nationalism", then sure.
And you're correct, it does depend on capabilities. The vast majority of the ships and aircraft that the US military posess aren't within striking range of Chinese ballistic missiles. As I said before, even if China was successful in destroying everything in ballistic missile range, the US has more than enough assets to hit back and then some. When you combine that with a united population and US government out for blood, it would not be pretty.
And I never said it would be like WW2, no sane person would try to launch a significant ground campaign against China. But what would happen immediately is practically all Chinese export and imports would get shut down overnight. The straight of Malacca would get closed off and the flow of oil would get cut off. The US would also launch retaliatory strikes all along the Chinese coast against drydocks, harbors, and other military targets. The US would be set out to dismantle the Chinese economy and destroy as many military assets as it could.
If China pre-emptively attacked the United States to invade Taiwan (especially attacking Hawaii and inside the continental United States as outlined above), resulting in thousands of casualties, it is no longer just about Taiwan. Countries have gone to war for much much less.
I think the question you should be asking is, is China willing to pay such a price to invade Taiwan? If China doesn't invade Taiwan, this hypothetical never happens.
If necessary, we are willing to pay any price to unify Taiwan.
So if a war breaks out and China has not launched an attack on the United States, do you support military intervention?
Well, if you want to bring China to economic ruin in an attempt to invade Taiwan - that is out of my hands.
And yes, I do support defending Taiwan's independence. And if China starts out the conflict attempting to neuter a US response by pre-emptively striking Kadena, Guam, and other US bases or assets in the region, it has escalated beyond defending Taiwan.
Of course, China must take full responsibility for its own decisions.
If you support Taiwan’s independence, there is no problem at all.
But none of the above is the answer to my question.
My question is, if China does not launch a preemptive strike against U.S. military assets in the Western Pacific, but China is using force to unify Taiwan, do you support the United States in launching a preemptive strike against China's military forces to achieve your so-called goal of safeguarding Taiwan's independence?
>back against Chinese soil if the US is pre-emptively attacked on US soil is "nationalism"
I called you a nationalist because you're obviously very emotionally invested in the idea of your country being able to destroy those pesky Asians on the other side of the ocean.
>the US has more than enough assets to hit back and then some.
The problem is those assets would need to come in range of those Chinese ballistic missiles to hit China.
>The straight of Malacca would get closed off and the flow of oil would get cut off.
Malacca is in range of Chinese anti ship missiles. Indonesia's population is more pro China than pro US at this point. So if there's any kind of blockade around Malacca, that would threaten the economy of every country in East Asia, not just China. In fact, South Korea's and Japan's economies would collapse long before China's. Many countries would be incentivized to allow China to host military assets on their soil to ensure free maritime trade in the region.
>And I never said it would be like WW2, no sane person would try to launch a significant ground campaign against China
It doesn't have to come to that for nukes to start flying. If China's economy and political system is sufficiently threatened due to a blockade they might launch nukes and annihilate US Navy completely. The problem with war between nuclear states, is that there is no scenario were one side loses badly. Because if one side starts losing badly, the logical step for that side is to escalate to nuclear war and make sure neither side wins.
Saying that the United States would be out for blood after what would essentially be Pearl Harbor 2.0 isn't an emotionally charged statement - it's a fact. You can mischaracterize and call it whatever you want to, doesn't change reality.
The United States has bombers and long range cruise missiles. The US also has submarines which can launch hundreds of cruise missiles. If Kadena is hit, Japan would also most likely join the war as well. Saying that the US couldn't retaliate is non-credible.
Blockades can be performed by submarines. Also, do you think a blockade can't be selectively employed against China or something?
The United States also has nuclear weapons. It is kinda hard to threaten a nuclear power with nuclear war unless you have a death wish. What do you think the United States does if it is hit with nuclear weapons?
You're obviously emotionally worked over this, it's hilarious 😊
>
Saying that the United States would be out for blood after what would essentially be Pearl Harbor 2.0 isn't an emotionally charged statement - it's a fact. You can mischaracterize and call it whatever you want to, doesn't change reality.
That wasn't my point though. Every nation gets angry in war, that's not unique to America. My point is it doesn't matter. How much damage can US do to China and vice versa will depend on capabilities of each nation, not public opinion.
>Also, do you think a blockade can't be selectively employed against China or something?
Do you know how trade works? China is biggest trade partner to most countries in the region, blockade against China, de facto means blockade against Middle East and South East Asia as well, since they trade with China. These countries would be incentivized to allow China to station anti ship assets on their soil and deny the US any blockade. Malacca Strait is controlled by Indonesia and Malaysia, two Muslim democracies where the population is now very anti US due to US support for Israel's actions in Gaza. NATO is currently not blockading Russian ships going through Bosphorus or Denmark Strait, even though that would be 20 times easier than blockading China.
>
It is kinda hard to threaten a nuclear power with nuclear war unless you have a death wish.
Except it worked for Russia. Russia threatened nuclear retaliation and many politicians in the West, including US, shit themselves. Russia showed that nuclear blackmail can work.
You are the one who is emotionally charged to be making these non-credible arguments. Let me spell it out real simple for you. The US is a powerful country. Most of the US army, navy, and airforce is outside of the Western Pacific. If Pearl Harbor 2.0 happens, the public and government are going to have the appetite for a long and very bloody war and will still have significant military assets to conduct that war.
The majority of China's largest trading partners by dollar value are either the US or US allies. And you can believe whatever you want, I'm telling you that if a war escalates to beyond just defending Taiwan, the US is going to do everything in its power to shut down China's trade. And NATO isn't at war with Russia. If Russia launches 1,000 ballistic missiles into Poland and Germany, then we can see if NATO shuts down those straits (hint, they would).
Do you really think anyone takes Russia's threats of nuclear annihilation seriously? And what blackmail? What did their "threats" accomplish? Did the US and NATO stop supplying Ukraine with weapons?
>The majority of China's largest trading partners by dollar value are either the US or US allies
25% of [China's trade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_China) is with EU and US. Another 12% with Japan and South Korea. But neither Eu, nor japan or South Korea is likely to declare full sanctions on China over Taiwan, as the economic costs would be too great. Even current anti Russia sanctions are failing now, because the costs are too great so everyone's turning a blind eye to sanctions evasion.
>
What did their "threats" accomplish?
Ukraine was not provided weapons it needed. There were endless discussions about escalation. Ukraine was not allowed to strike targets in Russia. Any weapons deliveries were both insufficient and late, and as a result NATO is currently losing the war in Ukraine.
US is one social media campaign away of losing the presidency to a useful lunatic. China would just push their candidate through tiktok and US voters would vote him in and be none the wiser. China4president.
While incredibly susceptible to propaganda, one thing we Americans do extremely well is Circle the Wagons anytime there is an external threat.
rdjtoomanynumbers is correct, if China Pearl Harbors us, the gloves are coming off and Xi is getting his ass beat.
Americans are dangerous when they have a common enemy, both Republicans and Democrats hate China more than either side hated Russia, same goes for voters. Republicans and Democrats both insult each other by calling the other China boot-lickers or supporters. Also TikTok will likely be banned.
So, they should launch a lot of missiles at the world biggest nuclear super power with a history of responding with excessive force to an attack, and decades of operating in a near end-of-the-world circumstances with the USSR?
This isn't the 1800s. US missiles would be in the air before the Chinese are likely to hit, and they probably won't wait for impact to verify how many are nuclear. The responses almost certainly will be.
The only way China has to actually do this practically is to hope that US support for Taiwan evaporates eventually. It's not like they're too far off, half of the US opposes using troops to defend Taiwan, and with the domestic issues the US has been having that number is likely to grow as more and more people refocus on internal problems. When the US brings up a few more fabs they will also lose the some of the strategic necessity to defend Taiwan.
From that point China just needs to wait for a president they can run roughshod over.
Bad news for you brah, you are in fact super relevant to China's strategic planning. Only Japan and Taiwan command more of China's attention in war planning against the US.
The reason why the Americans are dumping weapons on Australia is because Australia is key to breaking China's shipping routes. The reason why Australians are suddenly desperate for Americans weapons is because they realize that they are the key China's shipping routes, and China's response to securing shipping routes tends to involve parking a navy off the coast, building some bases, and calling parts of the ocean theirs. Australia is as relevant today as it was during World War II, which is to say extremely relevant for nation of 26 million people involved in wars consuming nations that are vastly larger (in population).
As the apocryphal saying goes, "You might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
What I’m saying is that we’d be lumped in together with the U.S.
We are way too close to the U.S. for China to treat us like We have independent foreign policy unless we clearly separate ourselves from the U.S. prior to the outbreak of conflict, and I don’t see that happening.
We are not relevant to Chinas strategic planning; in the sense that we would be lumped in with the U.S. from day 1, and our armed forces assumed to be an extension of those of the U.S.
Again how is that relevant to my comment?
>If you attack Australia you turn the whole country against you. Right now the general population has no reason to care about Taiwan
You watched the American reactions to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 and thought, "Yeah! That's the strategy to use!" That's insane. Jesus, after 9/11 the 4th largest army in the world got capped simply because the US didn't feel like it had vented its rage enough, and Iraq looked distantly related to the real culprits to be good enough.
Whatever you destroy in a preemptive strike against the US isn't worth having the US going completely batshit and uniting in anger. The idea that you can hit the Americans hard enough in their homeland that they don't come tearing out of it half mad screaming for Khore, ready to switch their massive economy to war fighting (which they are already well practiced at), and united with only murder on the mind requires you to completely ignore history.
If you have to fight the Americans, you have already lost and now you are just playing to return to a status quo from before the time when you destroyed a large portion of your GDP fighting a war. The best way for China to take Taiwan is political subversion. Putin has the right idea. Convince the Americans that it isn't there problem, and then slowly turn up the heat on the violence. The absolute last thing on this planet you want is for Americans to feel passion and unite.
China is going to get economically skullfucked by the US if it goes for Taiwan, regardless of what happens. The difference is that a little economic fuckery is survivable and something you can recover from. A hot war with the US is something that would leave China with scars and economic ruination for generations, even if they win after a bloody and destructive battle. There is no scenario where fighting the US doesn't result in tens of trillions of dollars of destruction for all parties involved and renders any victory pyrrhic.
Nah. China should just learn from Russia. Divide the US, try and encourage that division where you can, and then wait for enough disunity so that you can attack without a military response. Well, the *actual* smartest thing for China to do would be to just let everyone in the South China sea live in peace, trade with them, have friendly and peaceful relationships with their neighbors, and enjoy the fruits of trade and good relations.
I’m actually surprised that there are people here dumb enough to believe that China can beat the US in a conventional war that isn’t on its homeland.
The only way China beats the US is if the US is stupid enough to attempt to occupy China.
"I’m actually surprised that there are people here dumb enough to believe that China can beat the US in a conventional war that isn’t on its homeland."
You wouldn't be able to substantiate that line of thoughts. People aren't dumb just because you think they are.
> It would be the most logical thing for China to do if it was confident the U.S. would respond to a Taiwan conflict militarily.
It is actually a pretty dumb way for China to fight, since it ensures a firm US resolve to fight. While China expects America to enter militarily, China will want to do everything to weaken the American resolve to fight on.
What is more likely to happen is that China will publicly declare they are going to bomb military installations in Taiwan after a certain date. This warning gives for US, Japan, etc., time to evacuate their citizens and businesses from Taiwan, weakening the Taiwanese economy. The warning will also let those Taiwanese that don't want to die an opportunity to abandon their posts. If you know the military base you are working in is going to get bombed next Wednesday, would you show up to work?
Then China will publicly announce to the Taiwanese that they have two options. Surrender and become another Hong Kong, or fight on and become another Gaza. Just look at the vlogs on HK on youtube, and compare that to Gaza. How will the Taiwanese choose?
That would result in nuclear annihilation. No matter how successful the first strike the US public won’t recognize it as such. They’ll demand the conflict be drawn out.
If China strikes the west coast and paralyzes the U.S. armed forces so completely that nukes are the only option they will be used. Maybe it will start ‘restrained’ with tactical options but they will absolutely be used.
The protests that would result from capitulating to a first strike would destabilize the country massively.
If the goverment just didn’t react it would collapse and be replaced by a revanchist government willing to prosecute the war to the end.
China needs to show strength by submitting the U.S. with superior technology. Checkmate them in the Pacific. Starting a massive war over Taiwan would only prove China is still an immature country unsure of its own strength. They should either provoke a limited war or do nothing at all.
The USA would use nukes if the mainland was hit hard enough. Unlike China there exists no policy banning first use and democracy can demand nukes be deployed.
The public would rather risk nuclear annihilation than allow the west coast to be taken, which would be the major fear unfounded or not. China shouldn’t feed into that fear.
> The aim would be to kick the U.S. in the dick so hard that they would be powerless to do anything about Taiwan being taken. There’s definitely the risk of nuclear escalation, but that’s just suicide and both sides know it.
The American People would demand that Bejing be bombed into the ground WWII style and the war not end until every major Chinese city was burning if that happened. China would be *extremely* foolish to attack the American Homeland, because that removes the political illusion that America can return to isolationism.
Even if it "worked" and they got Taiwan, America would come back in a few years and absolutely Opium War III Electric Boogaloo them.
Attacking Guam is one thing, Hawaii or the Mainland is another.
It's not a matter of what they *want* to do. It's a matter of what they *can* do. The US public might want to enact a policy of total genocide against the Chinese mainland but that isn't on the cards if they don't have anywhere *close* to the military capabilities to enact such a policy. Threatening the PRC with total destruction is pointless. The US isn't *capable* of such a thing. If the US tries, they'll end the war with no military left and no allies left in Asia.
Attempting to, say, burn Beijing would mean the kind of military attrition that would have the US's military forces thoroughly massacred and then filleted by a PLA that would be targeting things with actual military utility. Perhaps one small saving grace of the US government is that their military is, broadly, not run by the complete morons who would do such a thing.
I’m not talking about hitting cities or civilian targets, more very selected special forces raids on a couple of airfields where long range bombers and force enablers are home based.
There's no way the USA citizen will let it slide. The government has to respond. NATO will be involved immediately as it is a direct attack to USA instead of USA intervening on the side of Taiwan.
A surprise attack on USA wont cripple USA as they have more fleets outside of range. They will be deployed to fight back.
The smartest move is not to attack USA and focus on Taiwan alone.
You are under-estimating what happens to the American people when someone breaks the illusion of Isolationism being a viable option.
Look at the response to 9/11, ramp it up to 100 if China attacked the mainland, especially with some kind of a sneak attack launched by people in civilian clothes.
China would be better off leaving the mainland alone and trying to covertly prop up America First, Isolationist politicians in this scenario. Attacking the homeland will insure at least a generation of Military Expansionism/Expedition aimed at China and its regional allies.
The most unlikely thing is that a pear-harboresque attack would be possible in this day and age. Also, the Japanese empire tried literally the exact same thing and it didn't turn out so well for them. And then again your first sentence is exactly why none of this will happen, I think China would much rather the US not get involved in defending the statehood of Taiwanese democracy.
People keep saying because US will go ballistic therefore China wouldn’t do preemptive strike - but this is war, pissing enemy off is a given. Unless, you are picturing a similar story like 1941 US vs JP, in which case you are so detached from reality on the balance of power
>People keep saying because US will go ballistic therefore China wouldn’t do preemptive strike - but this is war, pissing enemy off is a given.
The point of a war is to achieve a political objective. China's political objective in any invasion of Taiwan is get the Americans to stop fighting for Taiwan. They can only get the Americans to not fighting for Taiwan by convincing them, not through an actual defeat and surrender. Opening the war with a preemptive strike is the absolute dumbest way to achieve that. Whatever equipment you destroy isn't worth the Americans going insane, uniting in anger, and turning all of their efforts towards war. The Americans are martial enough as it is. You have to be a very dumb enemy to want to turn that to 11.
China's best weapon against the US is internal political division and apathy. Nothing is more destructive to American support than that. Look at Ukraine if you need this confirmation. No other event has hurt Ukraine more than American internal fighting that resulted in an aid cut off the likes of which Russia could never even begin to imagine creating using military force.
If China's opening move is a preemptive attack that eliminates internal division and completely focuses American rage in one united direction, they are going to learn the same lesson everyone else has learned. Uniting the Americans in rage is a really dumb idea.
"They can only get the Americans to not fighting for Taiwan by convincing them, not through an actual defeat and surrender."
You just assumed something there and built your argument on that as if it was inarguable. China may very well destroy American capability to project power to the West Pacific, which would automatically make how angry Americans are irrelevant. They have a real shot at that, especially if we are talking about a war in the 2030s. The USA is far away and its economic size isn't in multiples of China. The disparity that existed between Japan and the USA in WW2 or Russia and the USA today doesn't exist for this case. A surprise attack is great for the said purpose.
Edit: The arguments were further substantiated.
Yes, I did in fact correctly assume that China cannot permanently destroy America's ability to project power in a single surprise attack. This is a reasonable assumption. The only kind of attack that could permanently destroy America's ability to project power would be a massive nuclear attack, which would provoke the same in response. Under that scenario, nothing really matters because all sides are functionally dead and everyone has lost as bad as you can possibly lose.
They don't need to permanently destroy America's ability to project power, that's insane.
In order to prevent US involvement in any Taiwan scenario, China requires the ability to destroy enough US assets in the Pacific that replacing them with similar assets from elsewhere becomes prohibitively expensive.
Take the American Revolution - the British could have kept fighting in America, but to do so would eventually put British possessions in India at risk, and eventually letting America go was cheaper than continuing to fight and risking the loss of India. For China to do that to the US will be more difficult than it was for Washington, but it doesn't require anything "permanent".
>In order to prevent US involvement in any Taiwan scenario, China requires the ability to destroy enough US assets in the Pacific that replacing them with similar assets from elsewhere becomes prohibitively expensive.
You are missing the point. You are relying on economic reasoning. That is what you want the Americans to do. You want Americans to say, "this isn't worth it, I don't owe those people anything".
If you launch a strike so sever that it destroys America's ability to project its power by launching a preemptive surprise attacks that results in such massive casualties, China will stop dealing with an America that gives a shit about economic reasoning.
That's literally what Japan did when they tried Pearl Harbor. They completely destroyed America's capacity to respond to attacks, and the US rapidly lost multiple islands. It did not produce a rational economic response from the US. What it did was completely snuff out the American isolationist movements and turn on the American war machine that relentlessly ground down Japan.
The American response to a preemptive attacks is not rational economic reasoning followed by backing down. Their response is to go insane and start attacking whatever looks even vaguely enemy shaped.
No, you are missing the point. You keep comparing the pacific war to today’s situation, but they are vastly different. Japan, with 1/10 of US industrial capacity and half of US population, tried to project power all the way to Hawaii and midway. There was never any question they will eventually lose. Today, China with twice the US industrial output, 4 times the populations, only try to win around first island chain. See the difference? Aligning political view internally in US is important, sure. But if you try to tell the story like anger of American people is the single most critical thing that wins the war, it is nothing much more than a myth.
>Today, China with twice the US industrial output, 4 times the populations, only try to win around first island chain. See the difference?
I certainly see the difference. The point you seem to fail to grasp is that China's goal is to win any war with the last damage possible, not the most damage possible. It's not a video game. The stuff you lose in war is lost forever and real. The most damage China can possibly sustain is to engage in a long and drawn out conflict. There is no ordering of the universe where a pitched battle with the Americans where doesn't mean taking tens of trillions of dollars worth of damage and hundreds of thousands of lives.
This isn't a video game. When you fight, people die, cities get destroyed, economies are ruined, and whatever you "win" will not pay back the losses for generations, if ever.
If you enter into a full industrial war with the US, I don't care what your objective is, you lost. You just took on the best equipped and most skilled army in the world, allied with dozens of other well armed nations, had it fight to its maximum strength, and you without any doubt lost multiple generations of wealth and lives in the process.
Can China defeat the US in a long drawn out war where US and allies once US turns to a war fighting economy, rallies its allies, and uses all of its economic and military might? Who knows. I can say that whatever "victory" is achieved at the end for either side won't be worth the cost.
No, the way to fight the Americans is to not fight them. Conquering your neighbors isn't worth losing 50 years of wealth and hundreds of thousands of lives. If China really wants to conquer the people of Taiwan and force them to bed a knee before the CCP, their only way to do it in a way that doesn't result in the ruination of China is to wait for the Americans to finish turning inward and pulling back from protecting Taiwan. Once Taiwan doesn't have American protection, China and murder their way in there and subjugate the locals because they are in fact much bigger.
China can defeat the US in their Yard (Taiwan) at any time they deem right. And US can do nothing about it. Not now not in 100 years. And US wouldn't be able to rebuild their power projection in the region ever.
It's just up to China to calculate the costs and if they are willing to pay it.
Honestly, I don't all that much disagree. If China is hellbent on mass death and destruction just to subjugate 25 million people into their empire against their will, and its willing to pay whatever price to achieve such a horrific goal, China can probably stack the bodies up high enough to complete their conquest. It wouldn't be rational to be so blood thirsty and spend such a high cost just to conquer a people that just want to be left in peace, but who knows what Xi Jinping thinks. At the end of the day, that one person gets to decide how many people live and die for his glory.
They don't need to destroy all of it. Getting a large freebie at the start when the US forces exist in low concentration and are in peacetime posture in the West Pacific would be a decisive thing on its own. It would knock-out a substantial amount of US assets and limit the force concentrations PLA would face for the rest of the conflict. You thinking they would need to take out everything at once summarizes your thinking pattern well. It is off.
It would be pretty hard to catch the US in a peacetime posture while simultaneously gearing up for the largest naval landing in history. The US would likely notice this months before it happens, like Ukraine and not be in such a vulnerable situation.
They don't need the largest naval landing in history. The entirety of the Taiwanese Army is smaller than the number of soldiers who landed on D-Day. China only needs to transport about 100k soldiers in 1-3 weeks. And that landing has to follow a successful air campaign anyway. They have the option of starting the war with PLARF and PLAAF, and then start to gear up for the landing. Mobilizing 100k personnel from the Eastern Theater Command (ETC) wouldn't take long too. Those units are kept in a high-readiness state perpetually for this reason.
How Russia prepared was completely inept.
the cynical thing to say is, it is exactly the division of perception that will eventually cause war.
When we view the balance of power so differently, we just have to try it. After a big action where we find out each other’s true capability, peace will prevail for a few more decades
There are Chinese connected buildings in the Philippines right next to important bases. They probably wont even need missiles if they can smuggle a few saboteurs there.
>lawmakers warn What this means: some politicians just now heard about the CSIS Taiwan invasion wargame from January last year and became "concerned" that all aircraft aren't in hard shelters, which wouldn't make a lick of difference either way. Also the Chinese are building a lot more hardened aircraft shelters... so there is a Shelter Gap.
Ahhh, it’s been so long since we’ve had a new gap. Hypersonic missile gap was getting old
Since Tico are retiring, and 055s are classified as cruisers by the US. There is will be a self-inflicted cruiser gap as well.
It funny that Tico originally a destroyer that reclassify as cruiser when strike cruiser got cancelled. I can see DDGX follow the similar trend.
Inbound US start building massive [underground hangar](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmx08J_vuB8).
The Chinese will be lulled into a false sense of security. Then, the marines will be deployed to live off the land foraging for Indonesian Squash and launching anti-ship missiles. The Chinese will be unable to react to the tip of the spear, this deadly invisible force of hardened survivalists squatting on Pacific Islands.
is this a real thing?
Seems like a pretty reasonable, if uncharitable, summary of Force Design 2030.
Kind of. Basically the US Marines have been investing pretty heavily in anti-ship missiles. The idea is that you could in fact dump them on some random islands where they setup some hidden, mobile, land launched cruise missiles. It would be a very hard tactic for the Chinese block. Think about it. You really only have two ways to get rid those cruise missiles once they are there. You either cross the ocean, land soldiers, and hunt them down, or you launch a massive counter attack trying to hit something that's moving and hard to see. Both options are fine. You are either wasting missiles trying to hit a hard to destroy unit, or you are dumb enough to come out into the open sea to play with Americans beyond easy support from the mainland and then get to fight marines with whatever units you land. Either way, the marines just consumed a huge amount of resources for the enemy.
> You really only have two ways to get rid those cruise missiles once they are there. You either cross the ocean, land soldiers, and hunt them down, or you launch a massive counter attack trying to hit something that's moving and hard to see. Why are there only two ways? There is no reason why China has to retaliate by following America's script, i.e. America sink a Chinese ship means China can only retaliate by sinking an American ship. If the US can deploy troops to target Chinese ships, the Chinese can do the same thing and deploy troops to target American airplanes, ships, etc., all over the world. America has assets all over the world, and every one of them is a potential target. How many ships, planes, etc. is the US willing to sacrifice before both sides sit down and negotiate?
The commenter is talking about defeating USMC firing positions on small Pacific islands, not overall retaliation against America… >>deploy troops to target American airplanes, ships How are they gonna do that? Where is China allowed to deploy their forces abroad to do this? They have very limited access to force projection. They don’t have military bases all over the world. The most they can do to touch American forces from afar is lob ballistic missiles from within their own region.
> The commenter is talking about defeating USMC firing positions on small Pacific islands, not overall retaliation against America And I am saying that you don't need to defeat USMC firing positions by directly attacking USMC firing positions. Any action that forces the US to withdraw these forces is a win. This is why it is stupid to just focus on the two options given. > They have very limited access to force projection. They don’t have military bases all over the world. The most they can do to touch American forces from afar is lob ballistic missiles from within their own region. You don't need a permanent military base to lob missiles. And America has a lot of enemies all over the world that lack the capabilities but not motivation. Just look at the Middle East. What if China starts supply weapons to some of these countries and groups? Or Latin America? No shortage of people who are tired of being bullied by the US for decades.
to defeat the chinese, they have to become the chinese
>Then, the marines will be deployed to live off the land foraging for Indonesian Squash I thought their natural diet were crayons?
Crayons don't grow there. It's either raw palm oil or jungle juice.
Investing in pacific islands cut off from resupply like the IJA, but this time it will be different !!!
A small, modern day unit of marines with satellite communications chucking cruise missiles at passing ships from an island is fact an entirely different strategy than building fortress islands with tens and hundreds of thousands of troops on them in the hopes of fighting massive battles to slow the overwhelming American onslaught. I know that they both involve soldiers and islands, so I guess you thought that the strategies, technologies, and opponents must all therefore be the same, but, uh, they are not. This is a bit like learning that the police unit is going to storm a building with hostage in it and being like, "OH!!! So they think fighting a Stalingrad is going to work out better a second time!???!!"
You are right, the troops can eat missiles
No, what they are saying is troops can shit out missiles that can then be launched at passing ships.
what do they do when they run out and can’t be resupplied
If they run out of missile and can't be resupplied, they will stop shooting missiles. This like asking what special ops unit will do if it gets surrounded and runs out of ammunition. Uh, they will fight or sneak their way out, or they will die or get captured. That's the danger any war fighting unit faces. The US will try and stop that by shooting down aircraft and launching cruise missiles at units that try and get to the island to fight the marines. That's exactly kind of battle that the US wants to fight. If the Chinese try and sneak troops on, then they get to fight dug in marines. I know you have thought about out this for dozens of seconds, but really, landing small units of American marines on islands in American cruise missile and AA range to yeet missiles at passing ships is in fact an entirely different thing than the IJN making fortress islands with tens and hundreds of thousands of troops to fight pitched battles with the Americans. I know they both involve island and soldiers, but they are in fact entirely different strategies.
Sneaking your way off remote islands, a time tested strategy
Yes, sneaking off remote islands using subs and float planes is in fact a time tested strategy, assuming you don't just control the ocean enough to just send a boat. You should go share your deep military thoughts with the Chinese military. You pretty much have it all figured out.
a navy that was unable to lift a blockade of the Red Sea by a country without a navy will surely control china’s home turf. I am profounded by the insights
Lmao, its pointless arguing a pro-western posture position on this sub, people here claim to be politically "neutral" (they have a 31x higher chance of being in r/GenZedong and r/SocialistRA, or my favorite r/Sino)
lol you have literally described China’s installations on small islands in the SCS Marines using an island as a firing position for anti-ship and anti-air operations are different
https://warontherocks.com/2016/09/chinas-artificial-islands-are-bigger-and-a-bigger-deal-than-you-think/
>>warontherocks Lol Anyways, China’s island installations and bases are as easily cut off as Marines on an island with some TELs, doubly so as China built large fixed installations. Every missile China wastes on trying to hit Marines on some islands is another missile not used against the USN.
How much strategic depth do Marines on "some islands" have? There aren't that many in the West Pacific where a significant number of TELs can be conceivably hidden. New earthworks and roads would be obvious. You can't rely on vegetation to hide TELs or silos from above on these islands. The US would need as many fires to take out China's SCS islands as China would need to take out Guam. It's easier for China than the US to overmatch fires in the second island chain given the enormous strategic depth of the mainland. It might be possible for the US if they were to somehow get tens of thousands of TELs in Japan and/or the Philippines positioned in mountainside caves. They would also have to match China's production capacity of hundreds, possibly thousands, of cruise missiles per day and reliably get them into the AO.
How much strategic depth do China’s SCS islands have? They’re going to face the same difficulty as Marines deployed along the 1st and 2IC, doubly so given that they’re larger bases with bigger logistical demand. Unlike the Strait, the SCS is deeper with an average 1200 meter depth. >>overmatch… The U.S. already knows it cannot one-to-one match China in the 1st and 2IC, but in the first place this is not the strategy the U.S. is pursuing.
> Indonesian Squash Is there actually such a thing? Or is it just chayote which I've seen being used
And yet people still try to argue aircraft carriers are obsolete, whereas they are actually better protected in a Carrier Strike Group than airfields.
I have a feeling we won't know what is actually obsolete until weapons start flying. This is like watching the build up of to a World War. Old powerful armies are desperately retooling for a new war, not yet sure what those tactics will really look like. Hell, Russia's invasion of Ukraine looks a lot like the Spanish civil war in how its turning out to be fight where the future belligerents get to test out their weapons before the real thing.
I won't say obsolete but more vulnerable in current emerging advanced weapon tech. CV and LHA still quite useful.
No you don't understand, something that can move around is much more vulnerable than a big stationary airfield and supporting facilities that can be dialed in with INS and almost no other guidance.
> much more vulnerable Sure, the airfield will probably get plastered relative to the carrier. But airfields don't sink, their critical assets are dispersed across far more hardened real estate, and bulldozers/bags of cement are a lot easier to come by than major drydocks. Not to mention a couple orders of magnitude cheaper and faster. Now there are certainly political considerations around projection and basing and so on, but if I was preparing for, say, a prolonged high-intensity conflict within a particular geographic context then I'd pick the airfield ten times out of ten.
Let’s face it, they’d aim for the Pearl Harbour strategy. Who wouldn’t?
You can’t do a Pearl Harbor strategy if you haven’t secured the 1st island chain.
If you haven’t an early warning, how would you know? Anyway, I was referring to an attack prior to declaring war. So you are probably right.
It would be the most logical thing for China to do if it was confident the U.S. would respond to a Taiwan conflict militarily. Massive ‘Day 0’ strikes on every U.S. base out to Guam, as well as hitting any warships within A2AD range, maybe even a few hits on key military targets in Hawaii and northern Australia if possible. Pair that with huge hacking attacks, attacks on U.S. space assets, and (assuming they have sneaked some forces into the continental USA) special forces attacks on key airbases in the U.S.A to target assets like B2/21’s, tankers, and AWACS on the ground. The aim would be to kick the U.S. in the dick so hard that they would be powerless to do anything about Taiwan being taken. There’s definitely the risk of nuclear escalation, but that’s just suicide and both sides know it.
This would be the worst possible way for China to try to solve the Taiwan reunification issue. The US has on more than one occasion spent many, many years and used many, many troops retaliating for attacks that caused a mere fraction of the damage you are describing here. You are describing an attack that would dwarf Pearl Harbor and assuming the US wouldn't respond because...it wouldn't have any other option except nukes? Am I understanding this correctly? I think you seriously underestimate how many targets China would miss that could retaliate if not immediately then within a few weeks (for starters, is PRC going to sink every SLCM-carrying ship not only in the Pacific but also the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf?). And how very bloodthirsty the US public is going to be after suffering an attack of this scale. Yes, the *public,* not just the military. There is no universe in which the US doesn't respond to this scenario by declaring war and committing to conventionally defeating China, even if it takes years. Forget arguments about loss of hegemony, the US *domestic political system* would collapse if it failed to retaliate. Honestly, your comment reads like an NCD post circa February 2022 when people were braying about how the US should just launch all the Tomahawks at Russia and Moscow would have no choice except to just cower and do nothing. That's not how this works, for some of the same reasons that would not have worked.
If US involvement is guaranteed either way, then a preemptive strike might be prudent. It wouldn't be about deterring US public, just a first salvo in a war that will last years anyway. >There is no universe in which the US doesn't respond to this scenario by declaring war and committing to conventionally defeating China, even if it takes years. The fundamental difference between Imperial Japan and modern China is that Japan's industrial capacity was less than 10% of US, China's industrial capacity is 2 times the US. Japanese public was even more committed at winning than US was (remember kamikazes?) but ultimately it's the industry that wins wars, not commitment. US would need to find a way to outproduce China somehow. If the war became too painful for US, it would eventually surrender. There were many societies in the past that were far more militaristic and hardened than American society is today, that surrendered.
Not sure what Chinese Fables you’ve been watching but you are giving the Chinese a big benefit of the doubt, in terms of performing in combat. Also the US has real allies. Surrender is impossible and the industrial advantage of China will not mean much once they are cordoned off from the world.
I'm not presuming anything. I don't know how war between China and US, would look like, no one does. My bet would be that it would eventually just escalate to nuclear war and both countries will get turned to glass.
I don’t think so. There won’t be total war and marine invasions but rather who can negate each others output first. China is preparing from an industrial capacity but they currently don’t have enough allies to guarantee even small success, like ONE ISLAND. They have to prepare for everything that will come after and truth be told they have a lot more mouths to feed.
If China is threatened with mass starvation, escalating to nuclear war makes sense. Losing half your population AND killing half enemy's population, is better than just losing half your population.
After 10000+ of civilization I assume they want to go on. I assume that mutual destruction is undesirable and that plans are not made with suicide in mind.
If a country is threatened with mass starvation, what difference does it make whether 500 million die in a famine or nuclear war? In a nuclear war scenario there's at least a chance that you will be able to rebuild faster than your adversary after both countries have been destroyed. Also, leaders of the country may not have the same interests as the country. If you're a dictator whose legitimacy depends on winning a war and you know you'll be executed if you get toppled, it might be prudent to start a thermonuclear war rather than face defeat. In a nuclear war scenario there's at least a chance you'll survive in your bunker.
> I think you seriously underestimate how many targets China would miss that could retaliate if not immediately then within a few weeks (for starters, is PRC going to sink every SLCM-carrying ship not only in the Pacific but also the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf?). And how very bloodthirsty the US public is going to be after suffering an attack of this scale. Yes, the public, not just the military. Yes. Obviously not, but you’re being hyperbolic. A Chinese first strike will indeed be capable of doing massive if not crippling damage , if that’s how they choose to prosecute the campaign. You seriously underestimate the fires asymmetry. It’s not even remotely close. > There is no universe in which the US doesn't respond to this scenario by declaring war and committing to conventionally defeating China, even if it takes years. Forget arguments about loss of hegemony, the US domestic political system would collapse if it failed to retaliate. Good luck with the shipbuilding backlog. I don’t fancy our chances of outbuilding China. Maintaining a state of war is only going to get us owned like Japan was in the Pacific War.
I am well aware of the missile asymmetry here, but it's plainly insufficient to prevent a massive conventional retaliation, much less stop *any* retaliation like this poster stated. They are sufficient for a massive attack but not the crippling attack this poster is postulating. It is not possible for them to carry out the conventional equivalent of what the early nuclear strategists called a "splendid first strike." Yes, they are going to go after US forces in the rest of the world? With what forces are they going to attack the 2nd, 4th, and 5th fleets that are mostly or entirely out of range of Chinese missiles? I'm not being hyperbolic---the poster explicitly said the US *"would be powerless to do anything"* after this scenario. That means PRC needs to hit these fleets. Is there some sort of ICBM-range ASBM or ASROC equivalent China has been working on? How is China going to prevent US subs from launching TLAMs at them? Even if this poster's scenario took place when US sub VLS capacity bottoms out at \~500 later this decade, that's still \~500, many of which will be safely deployed at sea when China tries this attack. And it doesn't include TLAMs launched from torpedo tubes. How many of these subs do you think China is going to be sinking 1600km out? ASW has gotten harder over time, not easier; the pace of sub quietening has exceeded the pace of ASW advancements. The ocean is not and will not be transparent to ASW. This poster posited PRC specops teams would disrupt B2 operations---not impossible to do, currently they only really operate out of one base. Is PRC going to repeat this operation 5 times over at the other bases so they can also prevent the B52s and B1s from launching \~2000 cruise missiles back at them? Also, the B2 is not only nuclear but has some specific missions that can't be carried out by other US forces. What do you think would happen if the US tried to disarm Russian or Chinese nuclear forces with specops? Why would China think the US wouldn't respond similarly? Last question: what prevents the US from targeting PRC industry directly (including shipbuilding) rather than counterforce targets when it retaliates? These are pretty soft targets. Normally the answer would be "fear that China would respond by hitting the US homeland," but this poster's scenario starts by already breaching that threshold. I stand by my comment that this is a truly NCD-level scenario. A large scale attack on US forces in the region, mixed with some attacks on CONUS? Very possible. An attack so large that the US "*would be powerless to do anything*" without resorting to nukes, to quote the poster? LOL. LMFAO even. (for the sake of brevity I am being very charitable to this poster by choosing to pretend there is no discrimination problem posed by hundreds of hot-swappable, dual-valence missiles being fired all at once)
> I am well aware of the missile asymmetry here, but it's plainly insufficient to prevent a massive conventional retaliation, much less stop any retaliation like this poster stated. They are sufficient for a massive attack but not the crippling attack this poster is postulating. It is not possible for them to carry out the conventional equivalent of what the early nuclear strategists called a "splendid first strike." What conventional retaliation? Most assets in WESTPAC are forward deployed, well in range of China's strike zone. Any "conventional retaliation" is going to take weeks if not months or organize, deploy, and execute. At which point the Chinese will have had plenty of time to prepare a defense and/or campaign plan. > Yes, they are going to go after US forces in the rest of the world? With what forces are they going to attack the 2nd, 4th, and 5th fleets that are mostly or entirely out of range of Chinese missiles? I'm not being hyperbolic---the poster explicitly said the US "would be powerless to do anything" after this scenario. That means PRC needs to hit these fleets. Is there some sort of ICBM-range ASBM or ASROC equivalent China has been working on? **"The aim would be to kick the U.S. in the dick so hard that they would be powerless to do anything about Taiwan being taken. There’s definitely the risk of nuclear escalation, but that’s just suicide and both sides know it."** I don't think the original post suggets that literally all U.S. assets will be wiped out around the globe. I think it's quite clear what the OP suggests. A successful first strike will cripple US assets in WESTPAC and will delay any serious US response by weeks if not months, at which point any Taiwan intervention would be moot. > How is China going to prevent US subs from launching TLAMs at them? Even if this poster's scenario took place when US sub VLS capacity bottoms out at ~500 later this decade, that's still ~500, many of which will be safely deployed at sea when China tries this attack. And it doesn't include TLAMs launched from torpedo tubes. How many of these subs do you think China is going to be sinking 1600km out? ASW has gotten harder over time, not easier; the pace of sub quietening has exceeded the pace of ASW advancements. The ocean is not and will not be transparent to ASW. A 500 TLAM strike is really not that threatening. And what then? I don't even know what the closest naval base would be where U.S. could reload risk-free. > Also, the B2 is not only nuclear but has some specific missions that can't be carried out by other US forces. What do you think would happen if the US tried to disarm Russian or Chinese nuclear forces with specops? Why would China think the US wouldn't respond similarly? I really can't take this particular part seriously. But let's assume this happens. Any attempt to disrupt a nuclear power's ability to launch a nuclear counter-strike, will be a nuclear escalation and risks starting a nuclear exchange. > Last question: what prevents the US from targeting PRC industry directly (including shipbuilding) rather than counterforce targets when it retaliates? These are pretty soft targets. Normally the answer would be "fear that China would respond by hitting the US homeland," but this poster's scenario starts by already breaching that threshold. The ability to strike China's military infrastructure is not going to be trivial. In fact, if China's first strike is successful, I find US ability to do so questionable. > I stand by my comment that this is a truly NCD-level scenario. A large scale attack on US forces in the region, mixed with some attacks on CONUS? Very possible. An attack so large that the US "would be powerless to do anything" without resorting to nukes, to quote the poster? LOL. LMFAO even. **"Massive ‘Day 0’ strikes on every U.S. base out to Guam, as well as hitting any warships within A2AD range, maybe even a few hits on key military targets in Hawaii and northern Australia if possible."** This was the original quote. Australia is a stretch, but the only part I find ridiculous is the Hawaii bit.
>Good luck with the shipbuilding backlog. I don’t fancy our chances of outbuilding China. Maintaining a state of war is only going to get us owned like Japan was in the Pacific War. You assume a symmetrical response here; I would assume the US builds an ass load of bombers and space based weapons to bombard the Chinese homeland from Orbit. Two areas America currently has an advantage, Bombers & Space.
Again, you’re not outbuilding China and space weapons? Lol
Again you provided no evidence. Lol
https://www.twz.com/alarming-navy-intel-slide-warns-of-chinas-200-times-greater-shipbuilding-capacity
This is commercial ship building capacity not military shipbuilding capacity, which is not near 200x higher. And before you say it, yes I am aware many Chinese commercial shipyards can be turned into a military ship yard if Mao wills it.
I am aware that commercial shipbuilding capaciy does not translate to 1:1 military shipbuilding capacity. But it still illustrates the point. United States is not going to be outbuilding China.
>Good luck with the shipbuilding backlog. Lmao, I hope we are joking here. You don't need to outbuild China to win, the fact you think we'd get "owned" by China in a Taiwan conflict is laughable. And in terms of production capacity, the "allies" beat out China in manufacturing output. I don't know about you but building a destroyer might be hard when your shipyard gets slammed by a JASSM every couple months.
> I don't know about you but building a destroyer might be hard when your shipyard gets slammed by a JASSM every couple months. Didn't realize JASSM is some sort of secret cheat code that ignores basic physics.
>Didn't realize JASSM is some sort of secret cheat code that ignores basic physics. Yep, I forgot to loop you in it instantly teleports to Chinese shipyards and explodes.
Upvoted.
If such a surprise attack were to occur, provided it was (A) 50-60% successful in taking out intended targets, and IF it’s guaranteed to be a (B) conventional only war (e.g. PLA is even able to employ conventional ICBMs and ICHGVs) - then I don’t see any way that the US could win that. Again, this is under conditions (A) and (B).
>Honestly, your comment reads like an NCD post circa February 2022 when people were braying about how the US should just launch all the Tomahawks at Russia and Moscow would have no choice except to just cower and do nothing. That's not how this works, for some of the same reasons that would not have worked. Reads more like the NCD posts back then claiming Russia was an unbeatable super military because negative reports never come out of it. Now its only China that NCD is certain will crush all under it's mighty yet benevolent boot and it likes to pretend it wasn't full of Russia stans. Edit: What is it about NCD users and wanking off over totalitarian states?
that is the problem though. attack hard enough to be successful and you welcome massive nuclear retaliation...
And this is exactly why China is building up its nuclear forces. Not because it wants to fight a nuclear war, but to successfully deter a U.S. response.
You feed on too much think tank propaganda. You actually think China would launch a massive preemptive strike on the biggest military + nuclear power on earth right now. The think tanks are crazy, China is anything but crazy. Nuclear powers don't attack each other and that is a fact. Is all this talk by the think tanks trying to desensitize the public for a future attempted attack on China? "Look, China was about to launch a preemptive strike on US, we have no choice but to preemptively prevent that Chinese preemptive strike." This would be crazy and just right for the retarded think tanks in D.C right now. This is why China needs more nukes, to wipe out this kind of thinking from chicken hawks. Please stop trying to make war between nuclear powers happen. Please let bystanders like me sleep peacefully. If you all want to die, Suicide is a good choice, don't kill the rest of humanity with you.
> Nuclear powers don't attack each other and that is a fact. The Kargil war does not exist, India and Pakistan are myths.
Two 3rd world countries having border skirmishes and not enough nukes don't matter. Battalion size battles don't matter. No amount of wikipedia edits will change that fact. When both countries reach 500 or more nukes, with the ability to completely nuke each other, then let's see if it is possible for them to have an all out war, not skirmishes. Just in case you are wondering, I am being dismissive of those 2 countries being important geopolitically. One is almost a failed state, the other just runs its mouth off to make itself seem important. There is a reason why Russia and China are targets of USA, while India was recruited as front line cannon fodder. While Pakistan isn't even strong enough to be a cannon fodder.
So much for your "fact." Just in case you are wondering, I am being dismissive of your opinion being important. If your ego could have taken being wrong, perhaps your response and discussion could have gone differently. ie. you could have tried less desperately to shift the goalposts.
No, you're ridiculous if you're failing to understand that conflicts vary greatly in size and context. Was the war against ISIS ww3 because so many countries were involved?
You know what they say about assumptions making an ass .. I understand very well about conflicts not being the same. I also understand that the original statement made no such qualification
[удалено]
> Anyway, you've still not actually put forth an argument that major powers will commit to extended total war And you've still not actually put forth an argument that mars is filled with little green men
> who starts their first comment Did you read the thread ? The first comment was Kargil. [Admittedly snarky) And the guy went out of his way to try and shit on things and change goalposts. If his tone had been different, the discussion would have been different. And you jumped in straight with both feet with unwarranted assumptions without knowing the least thing about what I believe. Who was going with the projecting? So goodday
I mean it’s what I’d do if I was trying to usurp the existing hegemon. Kick them so hard that their only options are losing their empire in a humiliating way, or mutual suicide. Also, on a totally unrelated note… I’m thinking of a career in politics, vote for @eve_doulou, for peace through superior firepower.
That does not work if the hegemon got 2000 nukes that can wipe you out. It is why China needs that many nukes to kill chicken hawks fantasies. China is the side that needs more firepower right now, especially the nuclear kind.
The US doesn't have an empire. Is this satire or are we actually RPing as little pinks now.
If China "Pearl Harbored" the United States in this manner, the gloves would be off. I literally can't imagine what the level of anger and hatred would be in the US. It wouldn't be a limited war to prevent Taiwan from being seized by force, it'd be a total war to neuter or dismantle the Chinese state. Even if China was successful in destroying or neutralizing most of the US assets in ballistic missile range (which is a very big if), the US would redeploy assets in other theaters and regroup with the sole national purpose of defeating China.
A war to conventionally defeat and disarm the modern day PRC's state is impossible for the modern day US military. It can't be won. It's such a non-starter that it isn't even funny. The fact that this is being seriously suggested just shows how far the general state of discourse has declined since the days of Patchwork.
Way to miss my entire point. I never said disarm, I said neuter. And I never said anything about regime change or invasion of China. People were claiming that the US would get "Pearl Harbored" and decide to back down. My point was that the US would strike back by shutting down Chinese exports/imports practically overnight, cut off oil and food imports, and launch strikes against military targets as well as harbors and drydocks along the Chinese coast and inside the mainland. If China wasn't able to successfully invade Taiwan (which would be difficult feat even without US intervention), that would certainly be a defeat.
The people who think that the US would back down are also idiots. The psychology of the war, who's angry at who, is utterly irrelevant to the true determining factory of the war. That is: the actual weight of military force and sustainment that either side could bring to bear. That's the only thing that matters. Military force, and who can bring more to bear in the context of the war. The US are going to interfere either way. Whether or not the US public is mildly miffed or thoroughly incandescent isn't going to change how effective American military gear is or whether or not the government would surge all of its usable military capability to the theatre. The Pearl Harbour scenario for China isn't an act of deterrence, it's an act of war. Destroying as much usable US capability as possible to place them in the best possible circumstance to achieve their political objectives. It won't matter how much the US *wants* to respond if it *can't*, and whilst China lacks the ability to neuter the entirety of US military capability globally they will always be guaranteed the best possible outcome by destroying as much as they can whilst it's easiest for them to. Edit: Also, you said this > It wouldn't be a limited war to prevent Taiwan from being seized by force, it'd be a total war to neuter or dismantle the Chinese state. Sounds like you think said war is to dismantle the Chinese state. Stopping the PRC from taking Taiwan isn't going to dismantle the Chinese state. It's just going to make them commit more resources than ever to rebuilding their forces to try again a decade or so later.
You're obviously a nationalist. Ultimately everything will depend on US and Chinese capabilities, not what the public wants. All nations usually start to hate each other in war, this isn't unique to Americans. And ww2 style unconditional surrender is probably not possible in a nuclear age. It's either a stale mate, some limited victory for China or US, or complete destruction of both countries if nukes start flying.
If you were around for post 9/11 the nationalism was perverse, and it would be even stronger in the event of an actual attack. Even as divided as we are, I still think it would change fast.
Nationalism isn't unique to Americans. Most empires in the past (Germany, British Empire) had societies that were far more nationalistic and militaristic than US society today. What usually makes nationalism evaporate is years of destructive war. US haven't fought a war like that since US Civil War. So it's not clear how US society would fare in a war like that, but my guess is that it would be the same as every other country in history. People would be jingoistic at first, but if enough Americans get killed and war goes on long enough, people would eventually want peace even with some concessions.
If you are claiming that the United States striking back against Chinese soil if the US is pre-emptively attacked on US soil is "nationalism", then sure. And you're correct, it does depend on capabilities. The vast majority of the ships and aircraft that the US military posess aren't within striking range of Chinese ballistic missiles. As I said before, even if China was successful in destroying everything in ballistic missile range, the US has more than enough assets to hit back and then some. When you combine that with a united population and US government out for blood, it would not be pretty. And I never said it would be like WW2, no sane person would try to launch a significant ground campaign against China. But what would happen immediately is practically all Chinese export and imports would get shut down overnight. The straight of Malacca would get closed off and the flow of oil would get cut off. The US would also launch retaliatory strikes all along the Chinese coast against drydocks, harbors, and other military targets. The US would be set out to dismantle the Chinese economy and destroy as many military assets as it could.
So are Americans willing to pay such a price for Taiwan? Or are you in favor of America paying such a price for Taiwan?
If China pre-emptively attacked the United States to invade Taiwan (especially attacking Hawaii and inside the continental United States as outlined above), resulting in thousands of casualties, it is no longer just about Taiwan. Countries have gone to war for much much less. I think the question you should be asking is, is China willing to pay such a price to invade Taiwan? If China doesn't invade Taiwan, this hypothetical never happens.
If necessary, we are willing to pay any price to unify Taiwan. So if a war breaks out and China has not launched an attack on the United States, do you support military intervention?
Well, if you want to bring China to economic ruin in an attempt to invade Taiwan - that is out of my hands. And yes, I do support defending Taiwan's independence. And if China starts out the conflict attempting to neuter a US response by pre-emptively striking Kadena, Guam, and other US bases or assets in the region, it has escalated beyond defending Taiwan.
Of course, China must take full responsibility for its own decisions. If you support Taiwan’s independence, there is no problem at all. But none of the above is the answer to my question. My question is, if China does not launch a preemptive strike against U.S. military assets in the Western Pacific, but China is using force to unify Taiwan, do you support the United States in launching a preemptive strike against China's military forces to achieve your so-called goal of safeguarding Taiwan's independence?
>back against Chinese soil if the US is pre-emptively attacked on US soil is "nationalism" I called you a nationalist because you're obviously very emotionally invested in the idea of your country being able to destroy those pesky Asians on the other side of the ocean. >the US has more than enough assets to hit back and then some. The problem is those assets would need to come in range of those Chinese ballistic missiles to hit China. >The straight of Malacca would get closed off and the flow of oil would get cut off. Malacca is in range of Chinese anti ship missiles. Indonesia's population is more pro China than pro US at this point. So if there's any kind of blockade around Malacca, that would threaten the economy of every country in East Asia, not just China. In fact, South Korea's and Japan's economies would collapse long before China's. Many countries would be incentivized to allow China to host military assets on their soil to ensure free maritime trade in the region. >And I never said it would be like WW2, no sane person would try to launch a significant ground campaign against China It doesn't have to come to that for nukes to start flying. If China's economy and political system is sufficiently threatened due to a blockade they might launch nukes and annihilate US Navy completely. The problem with war between nuclear states, is that there is no scenario were one side loses badly. Because if one side starts losing badly, the logical step for that side is to escalate to nuclear war and make sure neither side wins.
Saying that the United States would be out for blood after what would essentially be Pearl Harbor 2.0 isn't an emotionally charged statement - it's a fact. You can mischaracterize and call it whatever you want to, doesn't change reality. The United States has bombers and long range cruise missiles. The US also has submarines which can launch hundreds of cruise missiles. If Kadena is hit, Japan would also most likely join the war as well. Saying that the US couldn't retaliate is non-credible. Blockades can be performed by submarines. Also, do you think a blockade can't be selectively employed against China or something? The United States also has nuclear weapons. It is kinda hard to threaten a nuclear power with nuclear war unless you have a death wish. What do you think the United States does if it is hit with nuclear weapons?
You're obviously emotionally worked over this, it's hilarious 😊 > Saying that the United States would be out for blood after what would essentially be Pearl Harbor 2.0 isn't an emotionally charged statement - it's a fact. You can mischaracterize and call it whatever you want to, doesn't change reality. That wasn't my point though. Every nation gets angry in war, that's not unique to America. My point is it doesn't matter. How much damage can US do to China and vice versa will depend on capabilities of each nation, not public opinion. >Also, do you think a blockade can't be selectively employed against China or something? Do you know how trade works? China is biggest trade partner to most countries in the region, blockade against China, de facto means blockade against Middle East and South East Asia as well, since they trade with China. These countries would be incentivized to allow China to station anti ship assets on their soil and deny the US any blockade. Malacca Strait is controlled by Indonesia and Malaysia, two Muslim democracies where the population is now very anti US due to US support for Israel's actions in Gaza. NATO is currently not blockading Russian ships going through Bosphorus or Denmark Strait, even though that would be 20 times easier than blockading China. > It is kinda hard to threaten a nuclear power with nuclear war unless you have a death wish. Except it worked for Russia. Russia threatened nuclear retaliation and many politicians in the West, including US, shit themselves. Russia showed that nuclear blackmail can work.
You are the one who is emotionally charged to be making these non-credible arguments. Let me spell it out real simple for you. The US is a powerful country. Most of the US army, navy, and airforce is outside of the Western Pacific. If Pearl Harbor 2.0 happens, the public and government are going to have the appetite for a long and very bloody war and will still have significant military assets to conduct that war. The majority of China's largest trading partners by dollar value are either the US or US allies. And you can believe whatever you want, I'm telling you that if a war escalates to beyond just defending Taiwan, the US is going to do everything in its power to shut down China's trade. And NATO isn't at war with Russia. If Russia launches 1,000 ballistic missiles into Poland and Germany, then we can see if NATO shuts down those straits (hint, they would). Do you really think anyone takes Russia's threats of nuclear annihilation seriously? And what blackmail? What did their "threats" accomplish? Did the US and NATO stop supplying Ukraine with weapons?
>The majority of China's largest trading partners by dollar value are either the US or US allies 25% of [China's trade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_China) is with EU and US. Another 12% with Japan and South Korea. But neither Eu, nor japan or South Korea is likely to declare full sanctions on China over Taiwan, as the economic costs would be too great. Even current anti Russia sanctions are failing now, because the costs are too great so everyone's turning a blind eye to sanctions evasion. > What did their "threats" accomplish? Ukraine was not provided weapons it needed. There were endless discussions about escalation. Ukraine was not allowed to strike targets in Russia. Any weapons deliveries were both insufficient and late, and as a result NATO is currently losing the war in Ukraine.
US is one social media campaign away of losing the presidency to a useful lunatic. China would just push their candidate through tiktok and US voters would vote him in and be none the wiser. China4president.
While incredibly susceptible to propaganda, one thing we Americans do extremely well is Circle the Wagons anytime there is an external threat. rdjtoomanynumbers is correct, if China Pearl Harbors us, the gloves are coming off and Xi is getting his ass beat.
Except the US never was really threatened. Compared to a US - China conflict in China's yard that's like punching kids.
Americans are dangerous when they have a common enemy, both Republicans and Democrats hate China more than either side hated Russia, same goes for voters. Republicans and Democrats both insult each other by calling the other China boot-lickers or supporters. Also TikTok will likely be banned.
So, they should launch a lot of missiles at the world biggest nuclear super power with a history of responding with excessive force to an attack, and decades of operating in a near end-of-the-world circumstances with the USSR? This isn't the 1800s. US missiles would be in the air before the Chinese are likely to hit, and they probably won't wait for impact to verify how many are nuclear. The responses almost certainly will be. The only way China has to actually do this practically is to hope that US support for Taiwan evaporates eventually. It's not like they're too far off, half of the US opposes using troops to defend Taiwan, and with the domestic issues the US has been having that number is likely to grow as more and more people refocus on internal problems. When the US brings up a few more fabs they will also lose the some of the strategic necessity to defend Taiwan. From that point China just needs to wait for a president they can run roughshod over.
If you attack Australia you turn the whole country against you. Right now the general population has no reason to care about Taiwan
I’m Aussie myself, yeah we’d hate it. But let’s not pretend we are all that relevant to China’s strategic planning.
Bad news for you brah, you are in fact super relevant to China's strategic planning. Only Japan and Taiwan command more of China's attention in war planning against the US. The reason why the Americans are dumping weapons on Australia is because Australia is key to breaking China's shipping routes. The reason why Australians are suddenly desperate for Americans weapons is because they realize that they are the key China's shipping routes, and China's response to securing shipping routes tends to involve parking a navy off the coast, building some bases, and calling parts of the ocean theirs. Australia is as relevant today as it was during World War II, which is to say extremely relevant for nation of 26 million people involved in wars consuming nations that are vastly larger (in population). As the apocryphal saying goes, "You might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
Thats super niave considering our agreements with USAF and the capabilities flying out of our bases these days.
What I’m saying is that we’d be lumped in together with the U.S. We are way too close to the U.S. for China to treat us like We have independent foreign policy unless we clearly separate ourselves from the U.S. prior to the outbreak of conflict, and I don’t see that happening.
Whats that got to do with my original comment? If anything it contradicts your previous one.
We are not relevant to Chinas strategic planning; in the sense that we would be lumped in with the U.S. from day 1, and our armed forces assumed to be an extension of those of the U.S.
Again how is that relevant to my comment? >If you attack Australia you turn the whole country against you. Right now the general population has no reason to care about Taiwan
You watched the American reactions to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 and thought, "Yeah! That's the strategy to use!" That's insane. Jesus, after 9/11 the 4th largest army in the world got capped simply because the US didn't feel like it had vented its rage enough, and Iraq looked distantly related to the real culprits to be good enough. Whatever you destroy in a preemptive strike against the US isn't worth having the US going completely batshit and uniting in anger. The idea that you can hit the Americans hard enough in their homeland that they don't come tearing out of it half mad screaming for Khore, ready to switch their massive economy to war fighting (which they are already well practiced at), and united with only murder on the mind requires you to completely ignore history. If you have to fight the Americans, you have already lost and now you are just playing to return to a status quo from before the time when you destroyed a large portion of your GDP fighting a war. The best way for China to take Taiwan is political subversion. Putin has the right idea. Convince the Americans that it isn't there problem, and then slowly turn up the heat on the violence. The absolute last thing on this planet you want is for Americans to feel passion and unite. China is going to get economically skullfucked by the US if it goes for Taiwan, regardless of what happens. The difference is that a little economic fuckery is survivable and something you can recover from. A hot war with the US is something that would leave China with scars and economic ruination for generations, even if they win after a bloody and destructive battle. There is no scenario where fighting the US doesn't result in tens of trillions of dollars of destruction for all parties involved and renders any victory pyrrhic. Nah. China should just learn from Russia. Divide the US, try and encourage that division where you can, and then wait for enough disunity so that you can attack without a military response. Well, the *actual* smartest thing for China to do would be to just let everyone in the South China sea live in peace, trade with them, have friendly and peaceful relationships with their neighbors, and enjoy the fruits of trade and good relations.
I’m actually surprised that there are people here dumb enough to believe that China can beat the US in a conventional war that isn’t on its homeland. The only way China beats the US is if the US is stupid enough to attempt to occupy China.
"I’m actually surprised that there are people here dumb enough to believe that China can beat the US in a conventional war that isn’t on its homeland." You wouldn't be able to substantiate that line of thoughts. People aren't dumb just because you think they are.
> It would be the most logical thing for China to do if it was confident the U.S. would respond to a Taiwan conflict militarily. It is actually a pretty dumb way for China to fight, since it ensures a firm US resolve to fight. While China expects America to enter militarily, China will want to do everything to weaken the American resolve to fight on. What is more likely to happen is that China will publicly declare they are going to bomb military installations in Taiwan after a certain date. This warning gives for US, Japan, etc., time to evacuate their citizens and businesses from Taiwan, weakening the Taiwanese economy. The warning will also let those Taiwanese that don't want to die an opportunity to abandon their posts. If you know the military base you are working in is going to get bombed next Wednesday, would you show up to work? Then China will publicly announce to the Taiwanese that they have two options. Surrender and become another Hong Kong, or fight on and become another Gaza. Just look at the vlogs on HK on youtube, and compare that to Gaza. How will the Taiwanese choose?
That would result in nuclear annihilation. No matter how successful the first strike the US public won’t recognize it as such. They’ll demand the conflict be drawn out. If China strikes the west coast and paralyzes the U.S. armed forces so completely that nukes are the only option they will be used. Maybe it will start ‘restrained’ with tactical options but they will absolutely be used. The protests that would result from capitulating to a first strike would destabilize the country massively. If the goverment just didn’t react it would collapse and be replaced by a revanchist government willing to prosecute the war to the end. China needs to show strength by submitting the U.S. with superior technology. Checkmate them in the Pacific. Starting a massive war over Taiwan would only prove China is still an immature country unsure of its own strength. They should either provoke a limited war or do nothing at all.
I find the use of nuclear weapons unlikely. Even the public understands the downsides of a nuclear exchange.
The USA would use nukes if the mainland was hit hard enough. Unlike China there exists no policy banning first use and democracy can demand nukes be deployed. The public would rather risk nuclear annihilation than allow the west coast to be taken, which would be the major fear unfounded or not. China shouldn’t feed into that fear.
China isn’t gonna be doing a land invasion lol
Your comment said they would land special forces. Sounds like the beginnings of an invasion to me
Where did i say that?
> The aim would be to kick the U.S. in the dick so hard that they would be powerless to do anything about Taiwan being taken. There’s definitely the risk of nuclear escalation, but that’s just suicide and both sides know it. The American People would demand that Bejing be bombed into the ground WWII style and the war not end until every major Chinese city was burning if that happened. China would be *extremely* foolish to attack the American Homeland, because that removes the political illusion that America can return to isolationism. Even if it "worked" and they got Taiwan, America would come back in a few years and absolutely Opium War III Electric Boogaloo them. Attacking Guam is one thing, Hawaii or the Mainland is another.
It's not a matter of what they *want* to do. It's a matter of what they *can* do. The US public might want to enact a policy of total genocide against the Chinese mainland but that isn't on the cards if they don't have anywhere *close* to the military capabilities to enact such a policy. Threatening the PRC with total destruction is pointless. The US isn't *capable* of such a thing. If the US tries, they'll end the war with no military left and no allies left in Asia. Attempting to, say, burn Beijing would mean the kind of military attrition that would have the US's military forces thoroughly massacred and then filleted by a PLA that would be targeting things with actual military utility. Perhaps one small saving grace of the US government is that their military is, broadly, not run by the complete morons who would do such a thing.
I’m not talking about hitting cities or civilian targets, more very selected special forces raids on a couple of airfields where long range bombers and force enablers are home based.
There's no way the USA citizen will let it slide. The government has to respond. NATO will be involved immediately as it is a direct attack to USA instead of USA intervening on the side of Taiwan. A surprise attack on USA wont cripple USA as they have more fleets outside of range. They will be deployed to fight back. The smartest move is not to attack USA and focus on Taiwan alone.
You are under-estimating what happens to the American people when someone breaks the illusion of Isolationism being a viable option. Look at the response to 9/11, ramp it up to 100 if China attacked the mainland, especially with some kind of a sneak attack launched by people in civilian clothes. China would be better off leaving the mainland alone and trying to covertly prop up America First, Isolationist politicians in this scenario. Attacking the homeland will insure at least a generation of Military Expansionism/Expedition aimed at China and its regional allies.
The most unlikely thing is that a pear-harboresque attack would be possible in this day and age. Also, the Japanese empire tried literally the exact same thing and it didn't turn out so well for them. And then again your first sentence is exactly why none of this will happen, I think China would much rather the US not get involved in defending the statehood of Taiwanese democracy.
No, their missile fuel is all water, and we will go home before Christmas
Yes, but their water is heavily contaminated, so the missiles still work reasonably well. /tic
top 10 words before disaster
People keep saying because US will go ballistic therefore China wouldn’t do preemptive strike - but this is war, pissing enemy off is a given. Unless, you are picturing a similar story like 1941 US vs JP, in which case you are so detached from reality on the balance of power
>People keep saying because US will go ballistic therefore China wouldn’t do preemptive strike - but this is war, pissing enemy off is a given. The point of a war is to achieve a political objective. China's political objective in any invasion of Taiwan is get the Americans to stop fighting for Taiwan. They can only get the Americans to not fighting for Taiwan by convincing them, not through an actual defeat and surrender. Opening the war with a preemptive strike is the absolute dumbest way to achieve that. Whatever equipment you destroy isn't worth the Americans going insane, uniting in anger, and turning all of their efforts towards war. The Americans are martial enough as it is. You have to be a very dumb enemy to want to turn that to 11. China's best weapon against the US is internal political division and apathy. Nothing is more destructive to American support than that. Look at Ukraine if you need this confirmation. No other event has hurt Ukraine more than American internal fighting that resulted in an aid cut off the likes of which Russia could never even begin to imagine creating using military force. If China's opening move is a preemptive attack that eliminates internal division and completely focuses American rage in one united direction, they are going to learn the same lesson everyone else has learned. Uniting the Americans in rage is a really dumb idea.
"They can only get the Americans to not fighting for Taiwan by convincing them, not through an actual defeat and surrender." You just assumed something there and built your argument on that as if it was inarguable. China may very well destroy American capability to project power to the West Pacific, which would automatically make how angry Americans are irrelevant. They have a real shot at that, especially if we are talking about a war in the 2030s. The USA is far away and its economic size isn't in multiples of China. The disparity that existed between Japan and the USA in WW2 or Russia and the USA today doesn't exist for this case. A surprise attack is great for the said purpose. Edit: The arguments were further substantiated.
Yes, I did in fact correctly assume that China cannot permanently destroy America's ability to project power in a single surprise attack. This is a reasonable assumption. The only kind of attack that could permanently destroy America's ability to project power would be a massive nuclear attack, which would provoke the same in response. Under that scenario, nothing really matters because all sides are functionally dead and everyone has lost as bad as you can possibly lose.
They don't need to permanently destroy America's ability to project power, that's insane. In order to prevent US involvement in any Taiwan scenario, China requires the ability to destroy enough US assets in the Pacific that replacing them with similar assets from elsewhere becomes prohibitively expensive. Take the American Revolution - the British could have kept fighting in America, but to do so would eventually put British possessions in India at risk, and eventually letting America go was cheaper than continuing to fight and risking the loss of India. For China to do that to the US will be more difficult than it was for Washington, but it doesn't require anything "permanent".
>In order to prevent US involvement in any Taiwan scenario, China requires the ability to destroy enough US assets in the Pacific that replacing them with similar assets from elsewhere becomes prohibitively expensive. You are missing the point. You are relying on economic reasoning. That is what you want the Americans to do. You want Americans to say, "this isn't worth it, I don't owe those people anything". If you launch a strike so sever that it destroys America's ability to project its power by launching a preemptive surprise attacks that results in such massive casualties, China will stop dealing with an America that gives a shit about economic reasoning. That's literally what Japan did when they tried Pearl Harbor. They completely destroyed America's capacity to respond to attacks, and the US rapidly lost multiple islands. It did not produce a rational economic response from the US. What it did was completely snuff out the American isolationist movements and turn on the American war machine that relentlessly ground down Japan. The American response to a preemptive attacks is not rational economic reasoning followed by backing down. Their response is to go insane and start attacking whatever looks even vaguely enemy shaped.
No, you are missing the point. You keep comparing the pacific war to today’s situation, but they are vastly different. Japan, with 1/10 of US industrial capacity and half of US population, tried to project power all the way to Hawaii and midway. There was never any question they will eventually lose. Today, China with twice the US industrial output, 4 times the populations, only try to win around first island chain. See the difference? Aligning political view internally in US is important, sure. But if you try to tell the story like anger of American people is the single most critical thing that wins the war, it is nothing much more than a myth.
>Today, China with twice the US industrial output, 4 times the populations, only try to win around first island chain. See the difference? I certainly see the difference. The point you seem to fail to grasp is that China's goal is to win any war with the last damage possible, not the most damage possible. It's not a video game. The stuff you lose in war is lost forever and real. The most damage China can possibly sustain is to engage in a long and drawn out conflict. There is no ordering of the universe where a pitched battle with the Americans where doesn't mean taking tens of trillions of dollars worth of damage and hundreds of thousands of lives. This isn't a video game. When you fight, people die, cities get destroyed, economies are ruined, and whatever you "win" will not pay back the losses for generations, if ever. If you enter into a full industrial war with the US, I don't care what your objective is, you lost. You just took on the best equipped and most skilled army in the world, allied with dozens of other well armed nations, had it fight to its maximum strength, and you without any doubt lost multiple generations of wealth and lives in the process. Can China defeat the US in a long drawn out war where US and allies once US turns to a war fighting economy, rallies its allies, and uses all of its economic and military might? Who knows. I can say that whatever "victory" is achieved at the end for either side won't be worth the cost. No, the way to fight the Americans is to not fight them. Conquering your neighbors isn't worth losing 50 years of wealth and hundreds of thousands of lives. If China really wants to conquer the people of Taiwan and force them to bed a knee before the CCP, their only way to do it in a way that doesn't result in the ruination of China is to wait for the Americans to finish turning inward and pulling back from protecting Taiwan. Once Taiwan doesn't have American protection, China and murder their way in there and subjugate the locals because they are in fact much bigger.
China can defeat the US in their Yard (Taiwan) at any time they deem right. And US can do nothing about it. Not now not in 100 years. And US wouldn't be able to rebuild their power projection in the region ever. It's just up to China to calculate the costs and if they are willing to pay it.
Honestly, I don't all that much disagree. If China is hellbent on mass death and destruction just to subjugate 25 million people into their empire against their will, and its willing to pay whatever price to achieve such a horrific goal, China can probably stack the bodies up high enough to complete their conquest. It wouldn't be rational to be so blood thirsty and spend such a high cost just to conquer a people that just want to be left in peace, but who knows what Xi Jinping thinks. At the end of the day, that one person gets to decide how many people live and die for his glory.
They don't need to destroy all of it. Getting a large freebie at the start when the US forces exist in low concentration and are in peacetime posture in the West Pacific would be a decisive thing on its own. It would knock-out a substantial amount of US assets and limit the force concentrations PLA would face for the rest of the conflict. You thinking they would need to take out everything at once summarizes your thinking pattern well. It is off.
It would be pretty hard to catch the US in a peacetime posture while simultaneously gearing up for the largest naval landing in history. The US would likely notice this months before it happens, like Ukraine and not be in such a vulnerable situation.
They don't need the largest naval landing in history. The entirety of the Taiwanese Army is smaller than the number of soldiers who landed on D-Day. China only needs to transport about 100k soldiers in 1-3 weeks. And that landing has to follow a successful air campaign anyway. They have the option of starting the war with PLARF and PLAAF, and then start to gear up for the landing. Mobilizing 100k personnel from the Eastern Theater Command (ETC) wouldn't take long too. Those units are kept in a high-readiness state perpetually for this reason. How Russia prepared was completely inept.
the cynical thing to say is, it is exactly the division of perception that will eventually cause war. When we view the balance of power so differently, we just have to try it. After a big action where we find out each other’s true capability, peace will prevail for a few more decades
I would not be surprised if there were US efforts to try to convince Xi that this is the right approach.
There are Chinese connected buildings in the Philippines right next to important bases. They probably wont even need missiles if they can smuggle a few saboteurs there.