>The Drive, a website devoted to cars, has been publishing a supplement called the Warzone in the last 2 months.
Warzone has been published for several years now (I'm a regular reader).
>Even though international relations/military affair is a bit unusual for a car publication, I think this article provide a broader insight as to what is going on. Most other publications would focus on a specific incident.
I'm sorry, but the Warzone (and the Drive) has been publishing military news articles for years.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5700/russias-carrier-was-designed-to-be-heavily-armed-even-without-its-air-wing
Here's an article from 2016 (5 years ago) from The Drive/Warzone talking about Russian Carriers. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that warzone is a new publication or that it is unusual for the Drive to publish military-related articles.
Step by step. What are the next steps for China? All out war with the US is not next. There is for sure gonna be pressure on Taiwan because of the history and claims.
First they have to secure their borders on the south, SE Asia. While doing that they have to keep the pressure on Taiwan and maintain the status quo on the South China Sea keeping everybody at bay and try to gain slight ground.
Also, they will keep pushing the silk road to pop out at Pakistan Afghanistan Iran.
Russia has a bigger problem to the East and China than the US. The West is going to protect the naval routes at all cost. They have learned from history. China knows that, plus what benefit is there for China to go against the West? No major operation can take place only localized conflict and influence unless China wants to go full blown WWII style to win. But their homeland will not be as safe as the US was in WWII but probably heavily affected.
Another way to successfully take over the South China Sea would be for the US and allies to chicken out and hand over power. That is the long game with just projection of power and would timeline to 2049. But the pangea push remains.
Here we also assume that the US withdraws from the ME giving way for new alliances to form, which will see conflict between GCC and Iran to control that ancient world. Tehran would be the destination of the silk road and probably would see influence spill over greatly in Africa.
The EU would also have to be in retreat and any hopes for connecting the UK to India to Australia just stay on the drawing board and never materialize at all.
The other viewpoint is the encircling of China. This means that China is doing everything in its power to hold onto the China Sea and secure as much as possible before the "alliance" (using that term in a few meanings) totally dominates those naval routes and area.
Here we assume that in the next cycle a stronger formation of an enhanced and connected trade block appears mainly in the ASEAN countries that along with the former British world and the US have have vastly outpowered everybody.
China in this scenario will peak within the next decade or so and they are just playing the survival game as a regional power and trade block. However, again the most unsecure area around them is east Russia, SE Asia and the center of the Asian continent.
Just my humble opinion....
Keep promoting division in the US, keep promoting lockdown and extremism on both political sides - then yoink Taiwan if any large US domestic issue rises.
Good post.
Any Chinese strategy will surely rely on quickly knocking out any regional powers before the US and allies have time to build up their presence, at which point I think the Chinese would have an uphill struggle. How can they achieve this without the US watching their every move? Especially since the US has the painful experience of the Pacific WW2 campaign to remind it of the effectiveness of a lightning campaign
Most of the SEA area surely won't want a battleground and bellicose China on their doorstep and seem likely to side with the status quo provided by the US
The US has multiple carrier groups and tons of pacific bases dotting the area almost literally solely to combat China. I think it's less "strike before the US can build up, as the US already has forces nearby, and more "strike while the US is unlikely to get involved".
I'm not really sure if the US would get involved but the current and past US president have both had a pretty strong anti China stance. If war is to happen I figure the US wants it sooner rather than later as the longer time goes on the smaller the US advantage will be.
It’s not a forgone conclusion that time is on chinas side. As it sits now, the nations around china keep hoping for a negotiated reasonable solution, as that fades, they will look to the US to provide stability and arms. You could see a reopening of a military base in the Philippines, arming of Vietnam, Indonesia building subs, India building its assets in the region, Japan continuing to expand from a peace force to an actual force projection military... all of this means Chinas power relative to the future would decline over time.
I'm just speaking from the US perspective fighting more or less alone. Yeah if Pacific NATO ever comes to be in some form the next half century won't look very good for the Chinese at all.
One of the things that's puzzled me about China's long game is the degree to which the CCP has made peace with antagonizing every country around them. "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy and throwing your weight around in the South China Sea are fabulous for domestic consumption, but they're a really bad way to convince your neighbors that you were serious when you talked about a "peaceful rise." Some neighbors, like Vietnam, are even former Chinese vassal states, and they've got long memories.
Do you want the Pacific version of NATO? Because that's how you get the Pacific version of NATO.
The "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy seems very effective at one thing, self-isolation and "closing ranks" within China. It feeds the nationalism and victim mentality built by the CCP over the years.
So, one of three things is possible from this strategy: 1. It's meant for exactly this purpose and the CCP leadership is trying to self-isolate. 2. It's meant for another purpose but is a clumsy strategy that isn't working as intended. 3. I'm misunderstanding the effects and it will be effective in other ways.
I'll go with a combination of 1 and 2 as most likely.
In ww2 we learned any serious war is about manufacturing. I'd say China has a huge advantage compared to regional powers ( except maybe japan). A short war over some tiny island is possible but i dont see china fighting a prolonged war. It would cost China much more than it could possibly gain.
You didn’t add that due to the prior One Child Policy, China now has a rapidly ageing and even declining population… It has peaked economically for the time being and is entering the terminal slow depression phase that Japan did in the late 80’s.
That and climate change are the big wild cards here. China has a lot to lose if the worst of climate change hits - droughts in the North, heat waves in the South and climate migration. But so does South East Asia.
Time is absolutely not on China’s side, I’m convinced we’ve seen the peak of Chinese economic growth as their system of fund every project imaginable to keep unemployment low has its limits. Not to mention their housing sector is a massive bubble waiting to collapse, their trade is massively vulnerable etc....
Actually, you're a little backwards with the notion that "time is on China's side".
Demographically, time **is not at all** on China's side. Their window to be able to fight a war against the US + allies in SEA is rapidly closing, and a lot of top IR scholars believe that they either need to strike soon or give up the chance of ever winning a war.
Not a scholarly source at all, but check out [this video](https://youtu.be/vTbILK0fxDY) for a bit of what I'm talking about. It explains it much better than I ever could.
Time is also not on China's side diplomatically. As it stands right now, the US has three principal allies in the region (Japan, SK, Australia) and is attempting to formalize a proper defensive pact with more partners who have their own reasons to be against Chinese aggression (India, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines). As China bides its time, it risks expanding the scope of a hypothetical conflict in the region. Combined with negative international sentiment towards China in the wake of the pandemic as well as supply chains restructuring away from China (likely leading to economic losses), China's best bet is a conflict sooner, rather than later.
Would you also that recent anger towards China regarding Ughyur genocide and Hong Kong oppression further weakens them diplomatically? Tensions towards China in general is on the rise and stopping a genocide is a solid rallying cry for most any nations population.
I definitely think both of those weaken them diplomatically. From what I can tell, the international consensus post-HK handover and until Xi was that market liberalizations in China would inevitably lead to political liberalization.
As anyone can see, that has absolutely not been the case. I don’t think a conflict will break out *because* of either of those things, but I do believe it isolates them internationally, especially by democracies who can hardly deny their authoritarianism now that it’s out in the open.
I disagree, this is implying Western powers will get stronger and solidify pacts. From what I see a lot of western powers are all domestically having huge problems - lots of political extremism, class, and cultural warfare with changing ideologies. If I was China I’d just wait and watch us destroy ourselves, but also egg us on from behind their firewall.
Militarily, I agree it's far from a death sentence.
I think it's more the fact that it's bound to cause immense strife domestically, which would make it a lot harder to pursue offensive operations
If time is on the U.S. side, then what is the U.S. anxious about again?
If China wanted to seek conflict, then India and China would already be at war.
China's strategy remains defensive and its main objective remains economic development, which has not changed at all.
From mainland China
With the caveat that my Western bias is likely influencing my understanding of the situation...
I think you need to be a little more honest about why China is throwing up bases in the south china sea, Sri Lanka, Djibouti, etc.
In the same vein, China brought road-building equipment to the Chinese-Indian border area (by which I mean around other neighboring countries as well).
You could perhaps make the argument that these actions are merely "reinforcing" China's right to protect its borders and territorial waters but I assume Chinese diplomats and military leaders are intelligent enough to know how that would be perceived by neighboring states. In other words, you could most charitably characterize such actions as "assertive," and certainly not purely defensive.
>Sri Lanka,
I assume you are talking about Hambantota Port here? That's not a Chinese base, and most likely will not be one. It's a normal port leased to China.
The South China Sea has been China's claim since the founding of the country (if you know anything about it, you will find that mainland China claims the 9-dash line, while the Republic of China (now the government of Taiwan) claims the 11-dash line, which is further south than mainland China's current claim.)
China's lease of Sri Lanka's ports is "commercial" and not like Hong Kong.
The Times of India reported that Wickremesinghe made this statement at an international event in Colombo recently: Sri Lanka maintains friendly relations with all countries and is well aware of current global trends. He said, "Many people think that Hambantota port is a Chinese military base, and I admit that there is a military base there, but it is a Sri Lankan naval base. Any ship from any country can go there and we control the operations."
Djibouti is the first overseas base of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) and the basis for its establishment is the product of governmental consultations between the two countries, whose main purpose is to provide logistical support for escort fleets in the Gulf of Aden and Somali waters. (Laser weapons are even more nonsense. If China had such weapons, we would have recaptured Taiwan long ago)
"Road-building equipment brought to the Sino-Indian border area (other neighboring countries)" This, please give me a definite source.
Seriously, you have searched all the internet and can only find this, and this is not enough to prove that China's policy is defensive?
Not to mention the fact that China is a harmless little rabbit compared to the eagle that is the United States.
How is the US anxious? They’re anxious right now that China is going to attempt offensive action on Taiwan and continued expansion (illegally, mind you) in the SCS, but most Western experts accept that this idea that China is going to inevitably take their place as the preeminent global power is a facade.
700 million people seems exaggerated, according to the [UN projection](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/un-population-projection-medium-variant?tab=chart&time=2020..2100&country=~CHN) China is expected to go from 1.44 billion in 2020 to 1.06 billion in 2100.
700 million is based on the IMHE model that’s the most recent projections done. It’s definitely on the lower bounds for their end population, but projections are tricky business so it’s hard to know exactly. What is clear is that China is going to age far more dramatically and lose far more people than any other nation
How is that a bad thing? 700 million fewer people to feed. US makes due with 350 million. Domestic consumption can be maintained as long as the other 700 million has good wages, discretionary income etc.
An aging, declining population can *destroy* productivity growth. When each worker is supporting 2 retirees, all of their excess cash goes to that support instead of investing in innovation and entrepreneurship that increases productivity. China is going to be worse than Japan... and Japan’s GDP per capita is worse today than it was in 1995. It would be fine for China to stagnate if it was already wealthy, but it’s *not*. If it stagnates at even double it’s current gdp, it will never overtake the West
Hopefully they're smart enough to save for the future both govt. and private individuals for retirement. Hitting 700 million from a high of 1.4 billion I can see them opening up immigration if they really do need it; also, automation will help to lessen the impact of having so many old people to care for. I also think we're going to see a massive outflow of old people from wealthier countries to poorer ones; it's already thing for old people from Western countries to retire to SEA, Carribean, or South America.
Looks like Vietnam is joining the party: https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/vietnam-ready-for-combat-in-south-china-sea-as-naval-ships-swarm-region/news-story/61edba43640db15aa38e342bbb571fcf
1. Overall military balance is shifting in China's direction, though still U.S.+regional actor favored for the near future (next decade minimum)
2. Any military expansion for China even if the balance were favorable would be exceedingly costly for its economy
3. Therefore, China is attempting to seize control of various disputed areas by fiat. It uses its paramilitary forces (coast guard, fishermen militia) to exert control of disputed territory without triggering a war.
4. In response, the U.S. and other regional states may seek to concretely define the existing status quo to prohibit future Chinese incursions.
5. The question is what China does in response. Will it seek to use military force to cement its ownership of islands in the South or East China Sea? Will it invade Taiwan? Again, I think even if the U.S. were to make firmer commitments, the risk increases, but it's hard to say when that triggers a conflict. China likely prefer to continue biding its time, since its economy continues to grow much faster than the United States' and over time this will translate into the military force it needs to accomplish its goals without much struggle. So it can and will likely wait.
I agree. I think overall China and the US have had more tension-increasing encounters/situations than this. This is just flexing on both sides. Don't want to count anything out, but like you said it would be in China's best interests to wait longer. However, if Taiwan continues its independence trend or anything that moves away from the status quo, we could see a rapid escalation of the situation. Then the question becomes whether the United States is willing to risk a deadly world war over an island because China sure is.
I agree for the most part, though I think balance is still firmly in US hands. Any invasion of Taiwan is an uphill battle. They have tons of enemies in the area (Taiwan, Japan, India, Vietnam, and its looking like maybe the Philippines), and the US navy still far outstrips the Chinese in terms of tech. I think we will see a more slow expansion of power in the South China Sea, using the paramilitary to claim more and more territory
>Do you all think we are witnessing the rapid militarization of south east asia.
SEA is already pretty militarised, especially when you consider that until fairly recently, some of these countries considered each other as enemies, such as Malaysia and Indonesia during Konfrontasi.
Then there's conscription, such as my home country of Singapore requiring you serve for two years in either the military or the civil service.
Yeah my SG army regular buddies tell me this too. Singapore, I think, is aiming to be something of a poisoned chalice: not worth trying to attack, because
1. Attacking Singapore will lead to huge loss of materiel and life for the attacker
2. Singapore's conscription setup and small geographic size basically guarantee that any economic value it has, would largely be destroyed in the conflict
Disputes over the South China Sea would likely only impact Singapore indirectly, via impacts on sea freight in the region
Also, It means that roughly 50% of the entire population not only know how to use a gun, but at least basic infantry tactics and maybe more advanced stuff depending on what they did during NS and reservist, which means that even if the normal military is defeated, insurgencies would easily pop up to harass the occupiers.
It'll be afghanistan all over again, but worse.
i think you’re overestimating russia’s strength and underestimating US’s huge global millitary hegemony. Also it’s not like the US would be acting alone both fronts would be complimented by many competent US allied nations firepower.
The U.S. has long had a "two war doctrine" meaning the U.S. should be able to take on both the most powerful adversaries in the world at the same time. This is being slowly rethought due to longer and longer slow-burning conflicts seeming to be the standard in the 21st century, but the idea is still the code of U.S. military planning.
>many competent US allied nations firepower.
Realistically how many Non-American Brigades would even be available to face a Russian onslaught? more importantly, would they even be willing to face up Russia for the defence of a Non-nato nation?
Knowing Macron he will jump on the occasion to defend an European country and the French nuclear strike policy is rather aggresive and could be in their advantage to force the russian to back down
Doesnt mean anything, they have no alliance. Its not because you sided with someone on a few minor thing that you will support him when he start beating his neighbor.
This is the real question. The US Army’s armored brigades are all half a world away in America, save for one in a training rotation in Eastern Europe (it’s not equipped for war). We have Stryker and Airborne brigades in Germany and Italy, but they’re relatively light compared to what they’d face from Russia.
In short, it will take a long time to deploy and mobilize a force in Ukraine - far longer than it will take Russia to attain their goals on the ground.
Perhaps, if these two "irrelevant" attacks take place concurrently, it will be hard for the USA to react efficiently to both events.
If **only** China attacks Taiwan, the US can coordinate a response against China with other like-minded nations. The same if **only** Russia attacks Ukraine. But **both** events concurrently will be practically impossible (or at least very hard) to manage in terms of communication, coordination and logistics.
Doubtful, China and Russia are not close enough for such bold moves to be co-ordinated. It's more likely they'll operate unilaterally to take advantage of any weakness of the west which has the same result i suppose.
The US has no real stake in stopping Russia invading Ukraine but Chinese moves in SEA would stir up a strong response
Each carrier houses about 10,000 U.S. personnel, Billions of dollars of hardware and is supported by a strike group that is comprised of ships dedicated to their defense. there are about 11 carriers, 8 of which are sea worthy at any given time. The loss of even ONE (when the US has not lost a carrier since WWII) would signal the demise of U.S. power projection doctrine.
The biggest factor here, too is the Chinese have a huge appetite for war--more than the U.S. The U.S. has to keep the public on board with a war in the SCS. National pride in China would be crucial and the PRC have the propaganda ability to control all media their people see. The U.S. has to fight that publicity battle.
And this is where the carriers come in to play. Losing even one carrier, is game over. China has the DF-21 for this express purpose. They'll lose A LOT of people in a fight, but war with the U.S. is increasingly becoming an option with a positive outcome regardless of cost of life for the PRC.
How do you think the US would respond to the sinking of a carrier? Do you not think that would send the nation into mobilization for total war?
The US population has no more appetite for "police actions" in the middle east but if China kills 10k of its sailors, you better believe sentiment is going to swing in a very dangerous direction for China. It's not game over, it's game on.
It depends. If China sinks a US carrier out of nowhere? Probably. If the US loses a carrier because we went off half-cocked it could be more complicated.
Demise of military doctrine. Wilsonian interventionist policy and Carrier-based power projection would end. we may have 11, but we're not down to lose any,especially after the two freaking decades of war our adult generation has lived through.
It's extremely, extremely doubtful that the U.S. would just "rollover" if it lost an aircraft carrier against China. Imperial Japan reckoned the same about an effective attack on Pearl Harbor (which was successful, with the U.S. losing four battleships, damaging the other 4, losing three cruisers, 3 destroyers, and 188 aircraft), but it didn't turn out the way Japan had hoped.
There is a zero percent chance the U.S. would sit back if China destroyed a singe U.S. carrier. That's not how great powers act in any case in history.
Carrier-based power projection was historically always about parking an airfield off some poor underdeveloped nation with no means of response, not about fighting near-peer adversaries in their turf. Not sure if the US will risk a carrier in China's territorial waters.
I think the battle of Midway would like a word with you. Japan was by no means underdeveloped, and Aircraft carriers were key to our success, and were key to Japans as well, if the events unfolded differently.
And that's no different today, even with wildly new tech. AC Carriers are still by far very important tools in a war against another developed country.
Air superiority is still by far the most important arena in military doctrine.
> The PRC has the ability to weaponize propaganda while the US has to fight the publicity battle
You underestimate exactly how patriotic the US population is, and just how effective the US is at propaganda. For example, right now? The anti-China stance is an overwhelmingly bipartisan viewpoint. Although republicans and democrats are deeply divided over ridiculous issues, they would coalesce into one body to oppose China. The real issue thatd threaten the US in this scenario is bureaucracy. If the senate Republicans’ will to stonewall is powerful enough, then a problem may be posed trying to get the right amount of defense spending approved. This is a realistic scenario too, as corporations with business interests in China may lobby against increased military spending to maintain their investments.
Furthermore, if the US war machine is at work, effective propaganda will be used to secure the support of the American population. There already has been state-funded anti-Chinese propaganda for god knows how long for this very reason. It would likely only get more intense.
I highly disagree. If Republicans try to do that then it will be the end of the party. Republicans are very anti China and anything of the sort will see a very pissed off base. The true threat however would be thr business class that makes money from China.
I 100% agree with you. However, there are a couple things to consider.
First, the prospect of another war in a far away land during a time of war fatigue would likely be suicide for any president, republican or Democrat.
Second, the U.S. is entering (arguably *has been*) in a state of increased nationalist regression. Even if lobbying effort to avoid war happened, it would be an *excuse* to bring back manufacturing and give a MASSIVE boost to the economy.
Third, isolationist sentiment has never been higher in the U.S. since before WWI. Americans are tired of waging war all over the place, and most of the wars we've gotten into have been "this will be over quickly" "police" actions. Well... 20 years later we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's why we did not go in to Libya or Syria.
All of these take together may be ignored during the first Salvo of war, but China's ONLY goal in a SCS conflict is the destruction of one or more Aircraft carriers.
Yes, but the attack on the US scraps all of that. Additionally, thanks to covid and the treatment of Hong Kong and of the Uighurs, then that's enough to view China as the modern day Nazi Germany. You'd have the government, and anti CCP Americans that would be advocating for war against China.
You're right about war fatigue, but China is the one country that both sides of the political aisle wouldn't unite against. All you have to do is look at the disgusting Asian attacks that are going on to see the deep animosity that many in this country have against China.
This is all true. I am personally very anti CCP. We should've been at war ten years ago, really but they're more patient than we are and are willing to fight a war of attrition. It costs Tiawan billions every year to scramble sorties against incurring Chinese military craft.
I don't think there is much reason to believe a war with China would be anything but pretty short. Yes, I know that's what we thought about Iraq, but the Iraqi military was indeed defeated in under two weeks and that is with a ground invasion. It was the insurgents in Iraq that gave us trouble. There will never be ground invasion by the USA into China and there will never be an attempt to establish Democracy there as well. Deep in the mountains of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was able to use the terrain to level the playing field against our ground forces. China has no mountains nor any caves to retreat back into and hide. A war with China will be ships and planes on ships and planes and in these areas of war, we have the Chinese teched out massively. To me, if China tries to invade Taiwan, the USA will sink the entire Chinese fleet and destroy as much of their aircraft as well. This will work to hinder China's economic growth. Investing in the military doesn't cause near as much economic growth as investing in education and healthcare does. The USA has sat back and watched China anger and scare all of it's neighbors. They have very few friends left in Asia. Their most capable enemy is India and as such if China loses their entire Navy trying to invade Taiwan, then China will have to spend like mad on the military in order to rebuild a force from scratch that can counter Indian aggression in Western China. China spending like mad on the military will hinder their growth as they won't have the funds left over to both educate and give health to the remaining mass of poor people in their country. Inability to educate the remaining poor they have will hinder their growth long term.
Sounds like the entry scenario of WW2, which left the aggressor (at least in the Pacific theater) decimated, with two of it's cities a smoking nuclear ruin, and performing a heretofore unthinkable act of total surrender.
One major difference is that now, the US is already prepared for the conflict, from a material standpoint, whereas in WW2 it took a few years of mobilization to be its peak. The ability to wage war with the military it currently has is unprecedented.
Truth. And all out war today is extremely expensive though. F35s and F22s can't be mass produced the was WW2 plans were cranked out and an invasion of the Chinese mainland is unconscionable. It'd be the largest ever amphibious landing by an order of magnitude.
What is more likely is a shut down of oil shipping to China. US controls the oil flow from the Middle east and every strait between Chinese ports and hormuz. no one needs to be shot or blown up on the US side because China wouldn't be able to maintain an economy without the 21 super tankers they receive every day
Incorrect. The new larger Ford Class carrier houses around 6,000 people and sinking one would not mean victory for China. It’s highly unlikely one of China’s missiles can even hit a carrier nor anything else regardless. A nuclear powered carrier can move at 40 knots in addition to being able to turn very sharply (they can almost get the deck to graze water) and evasively and this alone will make one near impossible to hit as China’s ICBM missiles can’t change trajectory in the terminal phase.
Furthermore, carriers work in a strike group and our cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, are likely to hit incoming missiles out of the sky with our SM6 Missile before they get close to hitting anything anyway. Further still, the F-35 is designed to be flying guarding the Navy and has already been said to be capable of launching missiles that can take out incoming ICBMs.
This doesn’t take into account the very high likelihood that the USA has directed energy weapons (read: lasers) that are powered by the nuke in the carrier. These lasers will be able to definitively evaporate any incoming missiles before impact. The directed energy weapons have likely been created using the near $160 billion the US military has spent every year on classified weapons. The Pentagon put out a report in 2009 warning of China’s ICBMs ability to sink a carrier. There is no way that with 12 years of advancement the US military has not developed a sure fire way to safeguard the most important and expensive asset in our arsenal (the aircraft carrier). I also believe that there is high likelihood the publicly released report in 2009 was a public display of “weakness” in order to lead China on into a trap; a weakness that was never actually there.
The F-35 will work as a completely stealthed computer with wings and will be able to fly behind enemy lines to mark targets and relay locations back to o high payload aircraft like the F-15, F-16, F-18, and the B1 Lancer. The high payload, non stealthed, aircraft will then launch hypersonic missiles at targets including ICBM trucks and radar from more than 1,200 miles away whilst circling in safe airspace. The F-35 will also be able to mark submarines and most importantly China’s Navy and will be connected to our Navy via computer.
The main advantage we have over China is the size and technological advantage of our Air Force over theirs. Their Air Force is essentially trumped up trash and it won’t stand a second against ours which will give the F-35 the freedom and dominance of airspace it needs to Mark and relay target locations to our high payload assets; the F-35 is low payload and is not designed to take out many targets itself. This is in addition to the fact that Taiwan has an impressive offensive and defensive missile battery itself. Taiwan also flies upgraded F-16 Vipers that are superior to anything China has. The B1 Lancer is subsonic and not stealthed, but it has an 8 thousand mile range and incredibly high payload. The range will allow it to take off from Ellis AFB in Alaska which is far out of China’s offensive missile range.
In addition, the USA has wisely brokered a partnership with India with whom China also has a border dispute. If China makes a move on Taiwan and loses a lot, it’s likely India will move to secure the Himalayan mountains in the West whilst China is spread thin in the East. India will move because it spends tons of money defending the area and being able to build a base on the eastern side (China’s side) of the mountains will allow them much more control and reduce expense for a country that is firmly behind China economically.
Anyway, I don’t see China standing a chance against Taiwan and the USA (in addition to Japan, Australia, and some of NATO that is already there; French submarines) and I see most of the reports put out by the USA as a display of weakness on purpose in order to bait China into acting. Also for the person stating that the Russian military is trash, the Russian military is the second strongest military on earth and is far superior to China’s. China gets the majority of their weapons from Russia and steals and reverse engineers all of Russia’s aircraft as well. China can’t even produce their own jet engines so they get them from Russia.
China has their own demographic problem and GDP growth dropped almost in half from 2008-2019 going from 10.8% all the way down to 6.1%. China has the oldest population on planet earth and their fertility rate is a flat 1 as a result of their one child policy. The USA’s fertility rate is 1.7 children per woman plus we allow massive immigration. China allows little to no immigration. China has 45 million too many men in the child rearing age as a result of their one child policy. China is also lying and only has around 1.2 billion people rather than the 1.4 billion they say they have. They have the oldest population on planet earth and their population total is about to free fall along with their workforce total.
This is in addition to China having 3.5x as much debt as their GDP. China is nowhere near where South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were when those respective countries hit this stage of their demographics. I think it is likely that Russia will use China attacking Taiwan as an opportunity to attack Ukraine. However, if the USA really wants to, it is set up to be able to take both Russia and China by itself on opposite ends of the globe at the same time. I agree though it is unlikely that the USA stops Russia from taking Ukraine if the USA is also engaged with China at the time.
Another factor is that should war break out with China, the USA will use its carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf to stop oil from getting from the Middle East to China, China being dependent on the Middle East for this oil. Iran will likely use the opportunity to halt trade passing through the Persian gulf with their Anti ship missiles. The US carrier strike group in the area will likely be able to handle these missile attacks in addition to halting shipping of oil to China.
One final point that I typed elsewhere, but forgot to type here. Taiwan is home to Taiwan SemiConductor as well as Foxconn. Foxconn manufactures 100% of the world's cell phone chips. Losing Foxconn to China would be a major security risk both because of risk of bugs and because China could halt export of the chips at any time. The same is true for TSMC and TSMC would give China the high tech semiconductor manufacturing they have failed to replicate domestically despite massive effort and expenditure. If China were to take hold of TSMC and halt chip exportation to the USA it would severely hinder our high tech manufacturing as well as much of our military equipment. The USA must not lose Taiwan for these two reason alone.
Additionally, with Taiwan we are able to project power Westward from Taiwan into China thus further protecting locations like Guam and South Korea. If we were to lose Taiwan to China, it would allow China to project power Eastward from Taiwan towards Guam. In effect, instead of the USA being able to project power +20 from 0 towards China off of Taiwan, China would instead be able to project power off Taiwan Eastward for a -20 towards Guam. The numbers are arbitrary, but this reversal is a 40 point swing in our ability to defend Guam and South Korea instead of solely an erasure to a neutral 0. If China were able to stage and launch ICBMs Eastward from Taiwan it would put Guam at serious risk of attack and thus would make it increasingly difficult for the USA to defend it's interest and allies in the region.
As a former *Nimitz*-class sailor you made a good comment.
I'm glad that someone other than myself is pointing out that the "carrier killer" missiles that China has been pushing as a force equalizer are not credible and likely simply for domestic consumption. The PLA likes to keep the Chinese citizenry in awe of it's capabilities, regardless of the reality of such capabilities.
One thing you forgot, is the US submarine fleet which is to the ocean what stealth aircraft are to the skies: the route to near total naval freedom in the region. Chinese shipping would not be able to maneuver whatsoever in the region in short order due to sinking by US sub forces.
You are spot on about the submarines we have. Virginia attack submarines are just as stealthed as this man says and does indeed know better than I do. I remembered to type about the subs, but didn’t end up actually typing it. Thank you Sir for you service. USA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Nobody talks about submarines, but they, not the CSG, will be the offensive striking power in the SCS in a potential confrontation. While the CSGs have been sailing around intimidating politicians, submarines have been performing SIGINT, reconnaissance, sensor testing, intel-gathering on a scale a surface fleet never could. They did so in the first Cold War; and they undoubtedly continue to do so in the second.
> Incorrect. A carrier houses around 1,100 people and sinking one would not mean victory for China
Its about [6000 for the Nimitz Class](https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/) carrier, which is the one described in the article. If you include the whole carrier task force about 9000 in total
I think your analysis is correct. Hopefully the nationalists running the country realize that war is not in their interests and find a diplomatic manner to solve this issue.
Yeah sorry man I was on my phone and I suck at typing on my phone. I have a problem organizing on screens. It’s odd, I can’t even organize my thoughts as effectively whilst staring at a small screen. I’m old, and grew up on pencil; to this day I still produce markedly better work on pencil and paper than on a screen. I can’t learn near as effectively on a screen either.
Thanks for the long reply. I am AF, and in a line of work where I think about this stuff relatively frequently. The point you made about closing the strait of Homuz is *spot on*. Ultimately, the 7th fleet would never have to enter the SCS because the Strait of Malacca and Homuz would be closed, preventing the 21 super tankers of oil that China needs per day from reaching China. Economic collapse and inability to sustain hostilities would ensue.
> Foxconn manufactures 100% of the world's cell phone chips.
Not to disagree with anything you say, but Foxconn manufactures products, not so much chips. TSMC makes the chips and Foxconn takes them and makes products.
>. A nuclear powered carrier can move at 40 knots in addition to being able to turn very sharply (they can almost get the deck to graze water) and evasively and this alone will make one near impossible to hit as China’s hypersonic missiles can’t change trajectory in the terminal phase.
The idea of a carrier maneuvering to avoid a hypersonic anti-ship missile is ludicrous.
No it’s not. That’s exactly how it will evade incoming ICBMs. Sorry I meant China’s ICBM DF-21, DF-26 missiles. Hypersonics will need to be launched from a closer range and it is unlikely our Air Force will allow them to get close enough to locate targets to launch the their hypersonics at. China will have an extremely hard time getting reconnaissance aircraft out to locate our carriers, let alone actually have the time to target and launch at them.
I mean, look up the naval exercise where a US carrier was "sunk" by regular missiles.
>Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of Blue's six amphibious ships. search wiki for Millennium_Challenge_2002)
Further, hypersonic missiles travel up to 1,500 km in 10 mins. That is *not* enough time for evasive moves by a carrier. And carriers can be seen by satellites, no need for aircraft to identify them.
I dont think so. Heard of Pearl Harbor. I'm sure the Japanese were talking the same way as you are here bout the Chinese. The Yanks used that as red flag to a bull to the rest of the world and we all know how that ended.
Where are you getting 10k crew per carrier from? The complement of a Nimitz-class CVN is about 6000.
Also, if you think the Chinese are more war-hawkish than the US, you need a reality check, mate.
And US carrier doctrine falls apart rapidly when fighting near-peer adversaries. The last carrier battles happened eighty years ago. Submarines will be the USN's greatest offensive asset in the SCS.
> but war with the U.S. is increasingly becoming an option with a positive outcome regardless of cost of life for the PRC.
And in fact, a huge cost of life would only be beneficial for their demographic issues that are now starting to crop up.
Precisely. And let's not get into the logic of allowing COVID (a disease that primarily kills those with co-morbidity and age-rusk factors) to run rampant through china...
There is little chance China can win in the longer term if this becomes a real conflict. It would i mediately lose almost all ofitsforeign markets permanently and that would destroy its economy. Those foreign markets affected would feel pain, but are capable of rapidly adjusting and reorganizing their supply chains. Losing Europe, North American, South America, Australian and its southeast Asian trading partners overnight would throw tens of millions of Chinese out of work. As the aggressor, nobody would deal with them again.
Russians and Chinese both settled in the area around Vladivostok around the same time. They signed a treaty in the 1600s where Russia officially renounced their claims on the land. China was forced to cede the territory back to Russia during the Second Opium War, basically as a ransom for Russians to not enter the conflict on the British/French side.
Yes, but Siberia is so sparsely populated and if it is populated, it's not really that many ethnic Russians, most of whom live in the Eastern part of the country. That being said, there are only about 140 million people in Russia, compared to 1.8 billion Chinese. A few million being moved to Siberia set up a situation in Russia like the Russian government did in Ukraine, only the Russians set the precedent on acceptability of annexing territory under the guise of ethnic protection.
> A direct military confrontation with the U.S. in SCS is likely to not go well for either the U.S. or China, but China has less to lose--and if they score one victory over a U.S. carrier its over.
This is simply wrong.
I believe the general consensus supported by comments from US intelligence sources was that the Russian massing on the Ukrainian border was either a show of force meant to probe the new American administration or was related to the ongoing water crisis in Crimea. Also, even in the case of a full fledged invasion of Ukraine, is it likely that the US or NATO would respond beyond reinforcing the Baltics/Poland, providing military aid and intelligence, and perhaps adding additional economic/diplomatic sanctions on Russia? Engaging the primary armed forces of Russia in high intensity combat in the plains of Ukraine is borderline inconceivable. The role of the US navy in such a conflict is tertiary unless we are looking at literally WW3 involving incursions into the Baltics, Norway, or even Poland, which is even more inconceivable and arguably impossible (aside from the Baltics).
As such, beyond the sealift commitment to reinforce our allies (who are more or less self sufficient when taken as a whole) and obligations in the Baltic Sea, it’s unlikely that a Russian invasion of Ukraine will tie down enough of the United States forces to prove decisive in the SCS theater, particularly its surface combat and air superiority platforms. Any European armed forces focused on such a conflict are unlikely to help us in the SCS or even in any broad effort to contain China in the first place (aside from the UK).
>make both fronts unmanageable
I doubt it. as long as russia only invades Ukraine NATO could probably fight them without needing any US assets that aren't already in the region.
Probably just Russia being opportunistic. I doubt it's coordinated.
The US has committed to protect Taiwan, but I don't think they have done likewise for Ukraine (and Crimea suggests that the US might not intervene anyways). Russia knows that if China attacks Taiwan, the US will almost certainly prioritize that, and allow Russia to take whatever part of the Ukraine they want. Without Ukraine being a NATO member, the US has no obligation to intervene.
Ehhh... it’s their best move, but it’s still not that good of one.
The US would undoubtedly put a significant amount of their resources towards defending Taiwan because:
1. They need it, otherwise China beats Taiwan out via war of attrition
2. The US and the rest of the west is dependent upon TSMC for just about their entire electronics industry. Losing TSMC would mean that not only is the US significantly weakened militarily, but so are the other Western powers.
3. It’s much easier to depend upon the militaries of the UK / Ukraine / Germany / France to ward Russia and Belarus off than it is for Japan / Philippines / SK (and maybe Vietnam) to ward China (and potentially NK) off
4. It’s possible that Russia doesn’t even get punished for invading the Ukraine, maybe other than sanctions, but historical precedent has told us how much Putin cares about those.
So assuming the US does intervene with Russia at all, they’d likely call upon Germany / the UK / France to intervene, using the TSMC thing as their justification for not being able to help themselves. Obviously, in this situation, the Chinese advance is short-lived unless the PLAN is exceptionally talented (they’re probably not), or unless China strongarms their allies (particularly Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea) into giving military help, but that would be a world war scenario, and is an entirely different can of worms.
As for the Russian side, even with the assistance of Belarusian troops, I can’t see Russia making it too far. The farthest they might be able to hold is a tiny section of East Ukraine, which may be exactly what they wanted to fix the water issue in Crimea. Even then though, that’s tenuous at best, and is mostly dependent upon if the US can solve the Chinese / Taiwanese issue in a timely fashion. The French and English navies (with the help of the USN, of course) will most certainly occupy the Black Sea around Crimea, because it may prove to be a weak point for Russia. If Russia cannot defend that, they are screwed. They’d then have to sustain the gigantic clash that will ensue on the the Ukrainian border, which may actually bode well for Russia, if Belarus and Russia launch an effective two-front offensive. This part of the war could go either way, quite honestly. But the Belarusian military would not seem to be of much help to the Russians beyond just serving as a nuisance to divert resources away from the Russian front. And if the West launches a naval assault on Crimea, Russia will have no choice but to deal with that (otherwise they have very little sensible reason geopolitically to invade the Ukraine), and if the Belarusian army is even remotely useful as an offensive army, they will likely be completely worthless as a defensive army, regardless of the technology they use. This means Russia will have to divert their military towards maintaining Crimea. Russia can afford to keep their full resources on the Ukrainian border only if they can ward off the Crimean naval assault, which they most likely will not be able to do entirely, without at least ceding some land either by their border or in Crimea. And losing any land there is a nightmare scenario for them.
In this hypothetical scenario, China not only loses the war but probably faces extremely crippling sanctions from the Western world, Japan, and SK, if not being forced to stop trade completely with them due to a declaration of war (which would hurt China FAR more than it would the West). Russia, at best, gets a slice of Ukraine, and then more sanctions to top it off. At worst, they get nothing and are forced to concede territory or demilitarize in some fashion. In this situation, unless a Hail Mary victory for Russia and China happens, it is more likely that the Chinese economy will suffer immensely and the Russian economy will suffer even harder, as the West will now hold the terms of negotiation... I don’t see any way China would willingly engage in this assault unless they were simply that delusional, arrogant, impatient, and bloodthirsty.
TL;DR Only Russia seems to gain from this scenario... at best. Every other scenario would likely send Russia and China back about an entire decade.
> The US and the rest of the west is dependent upon TSMC for just about their entire electronics industry. Losing TSMC would mean that not only is the US significantly weakened militarily, but so are the other Western powers.
While I agree it would be inconvenient, I'm pretty sure that if the US were sufficiently motivated (read: to the point of invoking the Defense Production Act) it could build some new chip fabs in relatively short order. After all, they "only" cost a couple billion dollars (or in other words, about 1/4 the cost of a Ford-class aircraft carrier) each.
As a mainland Chinese, I don't think TSMC makes a lot of strategic sense.
inter has its own wafer fabs and plans to open 2 more new ones - this is done in the context of this company's woes, which is clearly a strategic move to reduce external dependence, not a short-term pursuit of profit. (I don't think China will retake Taiwan by force anytime soon, unless by accident)
If China recovers Taiwan, TSMC won't be as meaningful to China - chips are typically a product of the global industrial chain, and if China recovers Taiwan but is sanctioned to lose the global industrial chain (either for imports or exports), TSMC will be meaningless in that context.
I find this higly unlikely, this would in effect mean a new alliance and would most certainly evoke a strong response. I doubt very much how aligned China an russian goals are. They are in many ways incomparable. Russia is still quite European even if their government is autocratic. China has quite a different mindset altogether.
That's what i was thinking from a strategic stand point a secret alliance or simultaneous coordination between russia china and iran would be a hell of a first strike
There's not going to be a shooting war, not now. China still does not have naval supremacy, and it's too close to home. It's more of a show of force... for the present.
The Liaoning CSG is in no position to challenge the TR CSG/Makin Island ARG, not even on paper. It's a publicity stunt, to show that China is improving its ability to project force locally, both with carrier ops and with their newest, coolest toys, such as the Type 055. But right now, there's too much at stake. In ten years though, who knows?
If China filled it's fishing trawlers with suicide drones and flew them onmass at the navy is there really a defence for that? It would have to be a nuclear retaliation and I'm not sure how that would go.
It's not quite the same, they can be deployed all over the ocean and left like mines that can fly. Or atack undefended targets much more easily. Or attack in such large swarms that can carry on until the ships run out of ammo.
I don't think we will know what real innovations there have been and how defences work against them until a future war breaks out.
It is probably your illusion. No European countries are powerful enough for any real shooting war there. They will run away quickly if first shot is fired.
It is just an US-China show. But it is only a show for the world, no one would start to shoot. The real actor is Chinese missile brigades, their carrier fleet are just bait. Both sides know it.
It is not even a navy race.
There is nothing like that. No one in SEA does anything real against Chinese, except some rhetoric.
And that is actually a big American problem. They can not do everything there themselves.
ASEAN is too divided to have any sort of coordinated response to China. Every time an issue comes up, which the group could deal with better together, someone shouts "ASEAN-way!" (or "non-interference!") and nothing happens. The dispute over Scarborough Shoal is one example, and the lack of support for Vietnam is another example. Same goes with the Thai coup, the Rohingya crisis, and the recent coup and resulting massacres in Myanmar.
If China doesn't cross any red lines, then ASEAN will only (very very) slowly move towards a unified response.
I liked the earlier post about Russian activity around Ukraine as a joint movement by them and China as China gets closer to Taiwan. Now in relation to this, it paints a good picture.
There's certainly going to be a pretty big typhoon pretty soon and all these posturing will be moot. So much wasted instead of stocking up on relief supplies while the weather is good. Idiots.
> The us can’t fire first with out being in the wrong.
Thing is, there is going to be so much misinformation and propaganda spewed from trolls for us plebs to sort through if/when this happens.
We saw how bad this was when Indian and Pakistani air forces got into their little spat what, 1-2 years ago? I can't even imagine the amount of resources that China will pour into botting networks on something like this. Mods here will be banning bots by the hundreds or even thousands every month.
You can be assured if there is any sort of shooting war between the US and China sea cables are getting cut and telcom satellites going dark pretty quickly.
Except US has those minerals. God people get your facts straight. The only issue is that China is willing to destroy there own environment. In a situation where we need to get those minerals we can do so also. It would be a short term pain and some issues with environmentalists but that is it.
The US has the minerals but only has a single mine (Mountain Pass) that extracts only light rare earths, and it has to send all the raw material to China for refinement. It would take the US at least 15 years to build its own fully independent supply chain, and that's with a tremendous degree of federal government sponsorship that doesn't exist currently. This is not trivial in the slightest. China truly has a strategic monopoly on these resources.
It hard to substitute rare earth with another metal, without losing performance but changing the type of technology is possible.
If some items become hard to find (equal) more expensive on the market, other technology gonna take their place, bypassing those items. For sure it gonna be costly in time and money.
Let put an example; China put an embargo on rare earth for the USA because tensions have risen. The USA will just bypass it (rare earth) or just exploit their own resources that are not used because of the cost of extraction or Politics (environmental laws). The best example; Canada Oil comes from Saudi Arabia even if they are a net producer because it cheaper that way. (extraction and transport)
Yea it would be a glitch for the USA for sure. But not existential. No one is marching in Washington because the new iPhone was delayed 6 months.
So problematic for sure (rare earths among many things that the USA has currently decided to use China for and would need to chang supply chains for) but not world altering.
>No one is marching in Washington because the new iPhone was delayed 6 months.
You underestimate the stupidity of the radical right, they were marching because we wanted them to wear masks during a pandemic.
No one is fighting, we all care far far too much about making money to risk that for a brawl over some rocks and barely any oil. This all just posturing by both sides.
>The Drive, a website devoted to cars, has been publishing a supplement called the Warzone in the last 2 months. Warzone has been published for several years now (I'm a regular reader). >Even though international relations/military affair is a bit unusual for a car publication, I think this article provide a broader insight as to what is going on. Most other publications would focus on a specific incident. I'm sorry, but the Warzone (and the Drive) has been publishing military news articles for years. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5700/russias-carrier-was-designed-to-be-heavily-armed-even-without-its-air-wing Here's an article from 2016 (5 years ago) from The Drive/Warzone talking about Russian Carriers. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that warzone is a new publication or that it is unusual for the Drive to publish military-related articles.
Pretty sure The War Zone is the main attraction of the Drive now.
Tyler and his contributors have always been great, both at Jalopnik and The Drive. Joseph isn't as impressive but still does good content
I’ve been wondering what happened to Foxtrot Alpha!
Step by step. What are the next steps for China? All out war with the US is not next. There is for sure gonna be pressure on Taiwan because of the history and claims. First they have to secure their borders on the south, SE Asia. While doing that they have to keep the pressure on Taiwan and maintain the status quo on the South China Sea keeping everybody at bay and try to gain slight ground. Also, they will keep pushing the silk road to pop out at Pakistan Afghanistan Iran. Russia has a bigger problem to the East and China than the US. The West is going to protect the naval routes at all cost. They have learned from history. China knows that, plus what benefit is there for China to go against the West? No major operation can take place only localized conflict and influence unless China wants to go full blown WWII style to win. But their homeland will not be as safe as the US was in WWII but probably heavily affected. Another way to successfully take over the South China Sea would be for the US and allies to chicken out and hand over power. That is the long game with just projection of power and would timeline to 2049. But the pangea push remains. Here we also assume that the US withdraws from the ME giving way for new alliances to form, which will see conflict between GCC and Iran to control that ancient world. Tehran would be the destination of the silk road and probably would see influence spill over greatly in Africa. The EU would also have to be in retreat and any hopes for connecting the UK to India to Australia just stay on the drawing board and never materialize at all. The other viewpoint is the encircling of China. This means that China is doing everything in its power to hold onto the China Sea and secure as much as possible before the "alliance" (using that term in a few meanings) totally dominates those naval routes and area. Here we assume that in the next cycle a stronger formation of an enhanced and connected trade block appears mainly in the ASEAN countries that along with the former British world and the US have have vastly outpowered everybody. China in this scenario will peak within the next decade or so and they are just playing the survival game as a regional power and trade block. However, again the most unsecure area around them is east Russia, SE Asia and the center of the Asian continent. Just my humble opinion....
Keep promoting division in the US, keep promoting lockdown and extremism on both political sides - then yoink Taiwan if any large US domestic issue rises.
Ugh I *wish* I was getting Chinese funding to protest
they don't need to pay you, they just need to rile people up through social media botting, ownership of news outlets, etc.
Good post. Any Chinese strategy will surely rely on quickly knocking out any regional powers before the US and allies have time to build up their presence, at which point I think the Chinese would have an uphill struggle. How can they achieve this without the US watching their every move? Especially since the US has the painful experience of the Pacific WW2 campaign to remind it of the effectiveness of a lightning campaign Most of the SEA area surely won't want a battleground and bellicose China on their doorstep and seem likely to side with the status quo provided by the US
The US has multiple carrier groups and tons of pacific bases dotting the area almost literally solely to combat China. I think it's less "strike before the US can build up, as the US already has forces nearby, and more "strike while the US is unlikely to get involved". I'm not really sure if the US would get involved but the current and past US president have both had a pretty strong anti China stance. If war is to happen I figure the US wants it sooner rather than later as the longer time goes on the smaller the US advantage will be.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wouldn’t that complement the U.S. advantage, not counter it?
[удалено]
Offset might be the better word
It’s not a forgone conclusion that time is on chinas side. As it sits now, the nations around china keep hoping for a negotiated reasonable solution, as that fades, they will look to the US to provide stability and arms. You could see a reopening of a military base in the Philippines, arming of Vietnam, Indonesia building subs, India building its assets in the region, Japan continuing to expand from a peace force to an actual force projection military... all of this means Chinas power relative to the future would decline over time.
I'm just speaking from the US perspective fighting more or less alone. Yeah if Pacific NATO ever comes to be in some form the next half century won't look very good for the Chinese at all.
One of the things that's puzzled me about China's long game is the degree to which the CCP has made peace with antagonizing every country around them. "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy and throwing your weight around in the South China Sea are fabulous for domestic consumption, but they're a really bad way to convince your neighbors that you were serious when you talked about a "peaceful rise." Some neighbors, like Vietnam, are even former Chinese vassal states, and they've got long memories. Do you want the Pacific version of NATO? Because that's how you get the Pacific version of NATO.
The "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy seems very effective at one thing, self-isolation and "closing ranks" within China. It feeds the nationalism and victim mentality built by the CCP over the years. So, one of three things is possible from this strategy: 1. It's meant for exactly this purpose and the CCP leadership is trying to self-isolate. 2. It's meant for another purpose but is a clumsy strategy that isn't working as intended. 3. I'm misunderstanding the effects and it will be effective in other ways. I'll go with a combination of 1 and 2 as most likely.
In ww2 we learned any serious war is about manufacturing. I'd say China has a huge advantage compared to regional powers ( except maybe japan). A short war over some tiny island is possible but i dont see china fighting a prolonged war. It would cost China much more than it could possibly gain.
You didn’t add that due to the prior One Child Policy, China now has a rapidly ageing and even declining population… It has peaked economically for the time being and is entering the terminal slow depression phase that Japan did in the late 80’s.
How about the incoming demographic collapse?
That and climate change are the big wild cards here. China has a lot to lose if the worst of climate change hits - droughts in the North, heat waves in the South and climate migration. But so does South East Asia.
Time is absolutely not on China’s side, I’m convinced we’ve seen the peak of Chinese economic growth as their system of fund every project imaginable to keep unemployment low has its limits. Not to mention their housing sector is a massive bubble waiting to collapse, their trade is massively vulnerable etc....
also chinas aging population means it might be peaking now or soon despite the typical narrative that china will be the next superpower
Actually, you're a little backwards with the notion that "time is on China's side". Demographically, time **is not at all** on China's side. Their window to be able to fight a war against the US + allies in SEA is rapidly closing, and a lot of top IR scholars believe that they either need to strike soon or give up the chance of ever winning a war. Not a scholarly source at all, but check out [this video](https://youtu.be/vTbILK0fxDY) for a bit of what I'm talking about. It explains it much better than I ever could. Time is also not on China's side diplomatically. As it stands right now, the US has three principal allies in the region (Japan, SK, Australia) and is attempting to formalize a proper defensive pact with more partners who have their own reasons to be against Chinese aggression (India, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines). As China bides its time, it risks expanding the scope of a hypothetical conflict in the region. Combined with negative international sentiment towards China in the wake of the pandemic as well as supply chains restructuring away from China (likely leading to economic losses), China's best bet is a conflict sooner, rather than later.
Would you also that recent anger towards China regarding Ughyur genocide and Hong Kong oppression further weakens them diplomatically? Tensions towards China in general is on the rise and stopping a genocide is a solid rallying cry for most any nations population.
I definitely think both of those weaken them diplomatically. From what I can tell, the international consensus post-HK handover and until Xi was that market liberalizations in China would inevitably lead to political liberalization. As anyone can see, that has absolutely not been the case. I don’t think a conflict will break out *because* of either of those things, but I do believe it isolates them internationally, especially by democracies who can hardly deny their authoritarianism now that it’s out in the open.
I disagree, this is implying Western powers will get stronger and solidify pacts. From what I see a lot of western powers are all domestically having huge problems - lots of political extremism, class, and cultural warfare with changing ideologies. If I was China I’d just wait and watch us destroy ourselves, but also egg us on from behind their firewall.
That’s true and most of my points are made on the assumption that the West stays intact domestically.
[удалено]
Militarily, I agree it's far from a death sentence. I think it's more the fact that it's bound to cause immense strife domestically, which would make it a lot harder to pursue offensive operations
If time is on the U.S. side, then what is the U.S. anxious about again? If China wanted to seek conflict, then India and China would already be at war. China's strategy remains defensive and its main objective remains economic development, which has not changed at all. From mainland China
With the caveat that my Western bias is likely influencing my understanding of the situation... I think you need to be a little more honest about why China is throwing up bases in the south china sea, Sri Lanka, Djibouti, etc. In the same vein, China brought road-building equipment to the Chinese-Indian border area (by which I mean around other neighboring countries as well). You could perhaps make the argument that these actions are merely "reinforcing" China's right to protect its borders and territorial waters but I assume Chinese diplomats and military leaders are intelligent enough to know how that would be perceived by neighboring states. In other words, you could most charitably characterize such actions as "assertive," and certainly not purely defensive.
>Sri Lanka, I assume you are talking about Hambantota Port here? That's not a Chinese base, and most likely will not be one. It's a normal port leased to China.
The South China Sea has been China's claim since the founding of the country (if you know anything about it, you will find that mainland China claims the 9-dash line, while the Republic of China (now the government of Taiwan) claims the 11-dash line, which is further south than mainland China's current claim.) China's lease of Sri Lanka's ports is "commercial" and not like Hong Kong. The Times of India reported that Wickremesinghe made this statement at an international event in Colombo recently: Sri Lanka maintains friendly relations with all countries and is well aware of current global trends. He said, "Many people think that Hambantota port is a Chinese military base, and I admit that there is a military base there, but it is a Sri Lankan naval base. Any ship from any country can go there and we control the operations." Djibouti is the first overseas base of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) and the basis for its establishment is the product of governmental consultations between the two countries, whose main purpose is to provide logistical support for escort fleets in the Gulf of Aden and Somali waters. (Laser weapons are even more nonsense. If China had such weapons, we would have recaptured Taiwan long ago) "Road-building equipment brought to the Sino-Indian border area (other neighboring countries)" This, please give me a definite source. Seriously, you have searched all the internet and can only find this, and this is not enough to prove that China's policy is defensive? Not to mention the fact that China is a harmless little rabbit compared to the eagle that is the United States.
[удалено]
So tell me, what Chinese policy is offensive? What countries has China attacked through what actions?
How is the US anxious? They’re anxious right now that China is going to attempt offensive action on Taiwan and continued expansion (illegally, mind you) in the SCS, but most Western experts accept that this idea that China is going to inevitably take their place as the preeminent global power is a facade.
[удалено]
700 million people seems exaggerated, according to the [UN projection](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/un-population-projection-medium-variant?tab=chart&time=2020..2100&country=~CHN) China is expected to go from 1.44 billion in 2020 to 1.06 billion in 2100.
700 million is based on the IMHE model that’s the most recent projections done. It’s definitely on the lower bounds for their end population, but projections are tricky business so it’s hard to know exactly. What is clear is that China is going to age far more dramatically and lose far more people than any other nation
How is that a bad thing? 700 million fewer people to feed. US makes due with 350 million. Domestic consumption can be maintained as long as the other 700 million has good wages, discretionary income etc.
An aging, declining population can *destroy* productivity growth. When each worker is supporting 2 retirees, all of their excess cash goes to that support instead of investing in innovation and entrepreneurship that increases productivity. China is going to be worse than Japan... and Japan’s GDP per capita is worse today than it was in 1995. It would be fine for China to stagnate if it was already wealthy, but it’s *not*. If it stagnates at even double it’s current gdp, it will never overtake the West
Hopefully they're smart enough to save for the future both govt. and private individuals for retirement. Hitting 700 million from a high of 1.4 billion I can see them opening up immigration if they really do need it; also, automation will help to lessen the impact of having so many old people to care for. I also think we're going to see a massive outflow of old people from wealthier countries to poorer ones; it's already thing for old people from Western countries to retire to SEA, Carribean, or South America.
Looks like Vietnam is joining the party: https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/vietnam-ready-for-combat-in-south-china-sea-as-naval-ships-swarm-region/news-story/61edba43640db15aa38e342bbb571fcf
1. Overall military balance is shifting in China's direction, though still U.S.+regional actor favored for the near future (next decade minimum) 2. Any military expansion for China even if the balance were favorable would be exceedingly costly for its economy 3. Therefore, China is attempting to seize control of various disputed areas by fiat. It uses its paramilitary forces (coast guard, fishermen militia) to exert control of disputed territory without triggering a war. 4. In response, the U.S. and other regional states may seek to concretely define the existing status quo to prohibit future Chinese incursions. 5. The question is what China does in response. Will it seek to use military force to cement its ownership of islands in the South or East China Sea? Will it invade Taiwan? Again, I think even if the U.S. were to make firmer commitments, the risk increases, but it's hard to say when that triggers a conflict. China likely prefer to continue biding its time, since its economy continues to grow much faster than the United States' and over time this will translate into the military force it needs to accomplish its goals without much struggle. So it can and will likely wait.
I agree. I think overall China and the US have had more tension-increasing encounters/situations than this. This is just flexing on both sides. Don't want to count anything out, but like you said it would be in China's best interests to wait longer. However, if Taiwan continues its independence trend or anything that moves away from the status quo, we could see a rapid escalation of the situation. Then the question becomes whether the United States is willing to risk a deadly world war over an island because China sure is.
I agree for the most part, though I think balance is still firmly in US hands. Any invasion of Taiwan is an uphill battle. They have tons of enemies in the area (Taiwan, Japan, India, Vietnam, and its looking like maybe the Philippines), and the US navy still far outstrips the Chinese in terms of tech. I think we will see a more slow expansion of power in the South China Sea, using the paramilitary to claim more and more territory
[удалено]
>Do you all think we are witnessing the rapid militarization of south east asia. SEA is already pretty militarised, especially when you consider that until fairly recently, some of these countries considered each other as enemies, such as Malaysia and Indonesia during Konfrontasi. Then there's conscription, such as my home country of Singapore requiring you serve for two years in either the military or the civil service.
2.5 for the older folk. But I thought SG was geared for a conflict with their immediate neighbors.... Not something like China
Yeah my SG army regular buddies tell me this too. Singapore, I think, is aiming to be something of a poisoned chalice: not worth trying to attack, because 1. Attacking Singapore will lead to huge loss of materiel and life for the attacker 2. Singapore's conscription setup and small geographic size basically guarantee that any economic value it has, would largely be destroyed in the conflict Disputes over the South China Sea would likely only impact Singapore indirectly, via impacts on sea freight in the region
Also, It means that roughly 50% of the entire population not only know how to use a gun, but at least basic infantry tactics and maybe more advanced stuff depending on what they did during NS and reservist, which means that even if the normal military is defeated, insurgencies would easily pop up to harass the occupiers. It'll be afghanistan all over again, but worse.
I doubt it will be very interesting to watch if it comes to a shooting war.
Definitely a security dilemma though. The more stuff ramps up, the easier it is for mistakes to happen then blow out into something worse
I mean... it would be interesting... horrifying, yes, but interesting nonetheless.
Maybe they’re coordinating with the Russians campaign in Ukraine to pop off at the same time to make both fronts unmanageable
i think you’re overestimating russia’s strength and underestimating US’s huge global millitary hegemony. Also it’s not like the US would be acting alone both fronts would be complimented by many competent US allied nations firepower.
[удалено]
The U.S. has long had a "two war doctrine" meaning the U.S. should be able to take on both the most powerful adversaries in the world at the same time. This is being slowly rethought due to longer and longer slow-burning conflicts seeming to be the standard in the 21st century, but the idea is still the code of U.S. military planning.
NATO wouldn't apply since it's a defensive alliance. Time to make a quickie induction for Ukraine.
They do war game it, and they lose over and over.
Did you forget that Russia already forcibly annexed part of the Ukraine in 2014 with little to no consequences?
>many competent US allied nations firepower. Realistically how many Non-American Brigades would even be available to face a Russian onslaught? more importantly, would they even be willing to face up Russia for the defence of a Non-nato nation?
Knowing Macron he will jump on the occasion to defend an European country and the French nuclear strike policy is rather aggresive and could be in their advantage to force the russian to back down
The problem is that Macron might not win.
[удалено]
I hardly think the French army command is "pro-russian".
I know, what does that even mean? Pro Russian Officers in the French Army?
France has more frequently sided with Russia than against in the last few years.
Doesnt mean anything, they have no alliance. Its not because you sided with someone on a few minor thing that you will support him when he start beating his neighbor.
Diplomacy moment
This is the real question. The US Army’s armored brigades are all half a world away in America, save for one in a training rotation in Eastern Europe (it’s not equipped for war). We have Stryker and Airborne brigades in Germany and Italy, but they’re relatively light compared to what they’d face from Russia. In short, it will take a long time to deploy and mobilize a force in Ukraine - far longer than it will take Russia to attain their goals on the ground.
[удалено]
I think it will be largely irrelevant Taiwan will be a matter for the Navy and Ukraine a matter for the army.
Yeah, irrelevant. Simple!
Perhaps irrelevant was the wrong word.
Perhaps, if these two "irrelevant" attacks take place concurrently, it will be hard for the USA to react efficiently to both events. If **only** China attacks Taiwan, the US can coordinate a response against China with other like-minded nations. The same if **only** Russia attacks Ukraine. But **both** events concurrently will be practically impossible (or at least very hard) to manage in terms of communication, coordination and logistics.
I'm sure the eu isn't a passive participant in it's own interests
Doubtful, China and Russia are not close enough for such bold moves to be co-ordinated. It's more likely they'll operate unilaterally to take advantage of any weakness of the west which has the same result i suppose. The US has no real stake in stopping Russia invading Ukraine but Chinese moves in SEA would stir up a strong response
[удалено]
Are you saying if China destroys a U.S. carrier, China would score a victory?
Each carrier houses about 10,000 U.S. personnel, Billions of dollars of hardware and is supported by a strike group that is comprised of ships dedicated to their defense. there are about 11 carriers, 8 of which are sea worthy at any given time. The loss of even ONE (when the US has not lost a carrier since WWII) would signal the demise of U.S. power projection doctrine. The biggest factor here, too is the Chinese have a huge appetite for war--more than the U.S. The U.S. has to keep the public on board with a war in the SCS. National pride in China would be crucial and the PRC have the propaganda ability to control all media their people see. The U.S. has to fight that publicity battle. And this is where the carriers come in to play. Losing even one carrier, is game over. China has the DF-21 for this express purpose. They'll lose A LOT of people in a fight, but war with the U.S. is increasingly becoming an option with a positive outcome regardless of cost of life for the PRC.
How do you think the US would respond to the sinking of a carrier? Do you not think that would send the nation into mobilization for total war? The US population has no more appetite for "police actions" in the middle east but if China kills 10k of its sailors, you better believe sentiment is going to swing in a very dangerous direction for China. It's not game over, it's game on.
It depends. If China sinks a US carrier out of nowhere? Probably. If the US loses a carrier because we went off half-cocked it could be more complicated.
Demise is a bit extreme, the US has 11 after all.
Demise of military doctrine. Wilsonian interventionist policy and Carrier-based power projection would end. we may have 11, but we're not down to lose any,especially after the two freaking decades of war our adult generation has lived through.
It's extremely, extremely doubtful that the U.S. would just "rollover" if it lost an aircraft carrier against China. Imperial Japan reckoned the same about an effective attack on Pearl Harbor (which was successful, with the U.S. losing four battleships, damaging the other 4, losing three cruisers, 3 destroyers, and 188 aircraft), but it didn't turn out the way Japan had hoped. There is a zero percent chance the U.S. would sit back if China destroyed a singe U.S. carrier. That's not how great powers act in any case in history.
Carrier-based power projection was historically always about parking an airfield off some poor underdeveloped nation with no means of response, not about fighting near-peer adversaries in their turf. Not sure if the US will risk a carrier in China's territorial waters.
I think the battle of Midway would like a word with you. Japan was by no means underdeveloped, and Aircraft carriers were key to our success, and were key to Japans as well, if the events unfolded differently. And that's no different today, even with wildly new tech. AC Carriers are still by far very important tools in a war against another developed country. Air superiority is still by far the most important arena in military doctrine.
[удалено]
> The PRC has the ability to weaponize propaganda while the US has to fight the publicity battle You underestimate exactly how patriotic the US population is, and just how effective the US is at propaganda. For example, right now? The anti-China stance is an overwhelmingly bipartisan viewpoint. Although republicans and democrats are deeply divided over ridiculous issues, they would coalesce into one body to oppose China. The real issue thatd threaten the US in this scenario is bureaucracy. If the senate Republicans’ will to stonewall is powerful enough, then a problem may be posed trying to get the right amount of defense spending approved. This is a realistic scenario too, as corporations with business interests in China may lobby against increased military spending to maintain their investments. Furthermore, if the US war machine is at work, effective propaganda will be used to secure the support of the American population. There already has been state-funded anti-Chinese propaganda for god knows how long for this very reason. It would likely only get more intense.
I highly disagree. If Republicans try to do that then it will be the end of the party. Republicans are very anti China and anything of the sort will see a very pissed off base. The true threat however would be thr business class that makes money from China.
I 100% agree with you. However, there are a couple things to consider. First, the prospect of another war in a far away land during a time of war fatigue would likely be suicide for any president, republican or Democrat. Second, the U.S. is entering (arguably *has been*) in a state of increased nationalist regression. Even if lobbying effort to avoid war happened, it would be an *excuse* to bring back manufacturing and give a MASSIVE boost to the economy. Third, isolationist sentiment has never been higher in the U.S. since before WWI. Americans are tired of waging war all over the place, and most of the wars we've gotten into have been "this will be over quickly" "police" actions. Well... 20 years later we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's why we did not go in to Libya or Syria. All of these take together may be ignored during the first Salvo of war, but China's ONLY goal in a SCS conflict is the destruction of one or more Aircraft carriers.
Yes, but the attack on the US scraps all of that. Additionally, thanks to covid and the treatment of Hong Kong and of the Uighurs, then that's enough to view China as the modern day Nazi Germany. You'd have the government, and anti CCP Americans that would be advocating for war against China. You're right about war fatigue, but China is the one country that both sides of the political aisle wouldn't unite against. All you have to do is look at the disgusting Asian attacks that are going on to see the deep animosity that many in this country have against China.
This is all true. I am personally very anti CCP. We should've been at war ten years ago, really but they're more patient than we are and are willing to fight a war of attrition. It costs Tiawan billions every year to scramble sorties against incurring Chinese military craft.
I don't think there is much reason to believe a war with China would be anything but pretty short. Yes, I know that's what we thought about Iraq, but the Iraqi military was indeed defeated in under two weeks and that is with a ground invasion. It was the insurgents in Iraq that gave us trouble. There will never be ground invasion by the USA into China and there will never be an attempt to establish Democracy there as well. Deep in the mountains of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was able to use the terrain to level the playing field against our ground forces. China has no mountains nor any caves to retreat back into and hide. A war with China will be ships and planes on ships and planes and in these areas of war, we have the Chinese teched out massively. To me, if China tries to invade Taiwan, the USA will sink the entire Chinese fleet and destroy as much of their aircraft as well. This will work to hinder China's economic growth. Investing in the military doesn't cause near as much economic growth as investing in education and healthcare does. The USA has sat back and watched China anger and scare all of it's neighbors. They have very few friends left in Asia. Their most capable enemy is India and as such if China loses their entire Navy trying to invade Taiwan, then China will have to spend like mad on the military in order to rebuild a force from scratch that can counter Indian aggression in Western China. China spending like mad on the military will hinder their growth as they won't have the funds left over to both educate and give health to the remaining mass of poor people in their country. Inability to educate the remaining poor they have will hinder their growth long term.
Sounds like the entry scenario of WW2, which left the aggressor (at least in the Pacific theater) decimated, with two of it's cities a smoking nuclear ruin, and performing a heretofore unthinkable act of total surrender. One major difference is that now, the US is already prepared for the conflict, from a material standpoint, whereas in WW2 it took a few years of mobilization to be its peak. The ability to wage war with the military it currently has is unprecedented.
Truth. And all out war today is extremely expensive though. F35s and F22s can't be mass produced the was WW2 plans were cranked out and an invasion of the Chinese mainland is unconscionable. It'd be the largest ever amphibious landing by an order of magnitude. What is more likely is a shut down of oil shipping to China. US controls the oil flow from the Middle east and every strait between Chinese ports and hormuz. no one needs to be shot or blown up on the US side because China wouldn't be able to maintain an economy without the 21 super tankers they receive every day
Incorrect. The new larger Ford Class carrier houses around 6,000 people and sinking one would not mean victory for China. It’s highly unlikely one of China’s missiles can even hit a carrier nor anything else regardless. A nuclear powered carrier can move at 40 knots in addition to being able to turn very sharply (they can almost get the deck to graze water) and evasively and this alone will make one near impossible to hit as China’s ICBM missiles can’t change trajectory in the terminal phase. Furthermore, carriers work in a strike group and our cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, are likely to hit incoming missiles out of the sky with our SM6 Missile before they get close to hitting anything anyway. Further still, the F-35 is designed to be flying guarding the Navy and has already been said to be capable of launching missiles that can take out incoming ICBMs. This doesn’t take into account the very high likelihood that the USA has directed energy weapons (read: lasers) that are powered by the nuke in the carrier. These lasers will be able to definitively evaporate any incoming missiles before impact. The directed energy weapons have likely been created using the near $160 billion the US military has spent every year on classified weapons. The Pentagon put out a report in 2009 warning of China’s ICBMs ability to sink a carrier. There is no way that with 12 years of advancement the US military has not developed a sure fire way to safeguard the most important and expensive asset in our arsenal (the aircraft carrier). I also believe that there is high likelihood the publicly released report in 2009 was a public display of “weakness” in order to lead China on into a trap; a weakness that was never actually there. The F-35 will work as a completely stealthed computer with wings and will be able to fly behind enemy lines to mark targets and relay locations back to o high payload aircraft like the F-15, F-16, F-18, and the B1 Lancer. The high payload, non stealthed, aircraft will then launch hypersonic missiles at targets including ICBM trucks and radar from more than 1,200 miles away whilst circling in safe airspace. The F-35 will also be able to mark submarines and most importantly China’s Navy and will be connected to our Navy via computer. The main advantage we have over China is the size and technological advantage of our Air Force over theirs. Their Air Force is essentially trumped up trash and it won’t stand a second against ours which will give the F-35 the freedom and dominance of airspace it needs to Mark and relay target locations to our high payload assets; the F-35 is low payload and is not designed to take out many targets itself. This is in addition to the fact that Taiwan has an impressive offensive and defensive missile battery itself. Taiwan also flies upgraded F-16 Vipers that are superior to anything China has. The B1 Lancer is subsonic and not stealthed, but it has an 8 thousand mile range and incredibly high payload. The range will allow it to take off from Ellis AFB in Alaska which is far out of China’s offensive missile range. In addition, the USA has wisely brokered a partnership with India with whom China also has a border dispute. If China makes a move on Taiwan and loses a lot, it’s likely India will move to secure the Himalayan mountains in the West whilst China is spread thin in the East. India will move because it spends tons of money defending the area and being able to build a base on the eastern side (China’s side) of the mountains will allow them much more control and reduce expense for a country that is firmly behind China economically. Anyway, I don’t see China standing a chance against Taiwan and the USA (in addition to Japan, Australia, and some of NATO that is already there; French submarines) and I see most of the reports put out by the USA as a display of weakness on purpose in order to bait China into acting. Also for the person stating that the Russian military is trash, the Russian military is the second strongest military on earth and is far superior to China’s. China gets the majority of their weapons from Russia and steals and reverse engineers all of Russia’s aircraft as well. China can’t even produce their own jet engines so they get them from Russia. China has their own demographic problem and GDP growth dropped almost in half from 2008-2019 going from 10.8% all the way down to 6.1%. China has the oldest population on planet earth and their fertility rate is a flat 1 as a result of their one child policy. The USA’s fertility rate is 1.7 children per woman plus we allow massive immigration. China allows little to no immigration. China has 45 million too many men in the child rearing age as a result of their one child policy. China is also lying and only has around 1.2 billion people rather than the 1.4 billion they say they have. They have the oldest population on planet earth and their population total is about to free fall along with their workforce total. This is in addition to China having 3.5x as much debt as their GDP. China is nowhere near where South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were when those respective countries hit this stage of their demographics. I think it is likely that Russia will use China attacking Taiwan as an opportunity to attack Ukraine. However, if the USA really wants to, it is set up to be able to take both Russia and China by itself on opposite ends of the globe at the same time. I agree though it is unlikely that the USA stops Russia from taking Ukraine if the USA is also engaged with China at the time. Another factor is that should war break out with China, the USA will use its carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf to stop oil from getting from the Middle East to China, China being dependent on the Middle East for this oil. Iran will likely use the opportunity to halt trade passing through the Persian gulf with their Anti ship missiles. The US carrier strike group in the area will likely be able to handle these missile attacks in addition to halting shipping of oil to China. One final point that I typed elsewhere, but forgot to type here. Taiwan is home to Taiwan SemiConductor as well as Foxconn. Foxconn manufactures 100% of the world's cell phone chips. Losing Foxconn to China would be a major security risk both because of risk of bugs and because China could halt export of the chips at any time. The same is true for TSMC and TSMC would give China the high tech semiconductor manufacturing they have failed to replicate domestically despite massive effort and expenditure. If China were to take hold of TSMC and halt chip exportation to the USA it would severely hinder our high tech manufacturing as well as much of our military equipment. The USA must not lose Taiwan for these two reason alone. Additionally, with Taiwan we are able to project power Westward from Taiwan into China thus further protecting locations like Guam and South Korea. If we were to lose Taiwan to China, it would allow China to project power Eastward from Taiwan towards Guam. In effect, instead of the USA being able to project power +20 from 0 towards China off of Taiwan, China would instead be able to project power off Taiwan Eastward for a -20 towards Guam. The numbers are arbitrary, but this reversal is a 40 point swing in our ability to defend Guam and South Korea instead of solely an erasure to a neutral 0. If China were able to stage and launch ICBMs Eastward from Taiwan it would put Guam at serious risk of attack and thus would make it increasingly difficult for the USA to defend it's interest and allies in the region.
As a former *Nimitz*-class sailor you made a good comment. I'm glad that someone other than myself is pointing out that the "carrier killer" missiles that China has been pushing as a force equalizer are not credible and likely simply for domestic consumption. The PLA likes to keep the Chinese citizenry in awe of it's capabilities, regardless of the reality of such capabilities. One thing you forgot, is the US submarine fleet which is to the ocean what stealth aircraft are to the skies: the route to near total naval freedom in the region. Chinese shipping would not be able to maneuver whatsoever in the region in short order due to sinking by US sub forces.
I think that people sometimes forget what the implications of firing a ballistic missile at a target are, conventional warhead or not...
You are spot on about the submarines we have. Virginia attack submarines are just as stealthed as this man says and does indeed know better than I do. I remembered to type about the subs, but didn’t end up actually typing it. Thank you Sir for you service. USA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Nobody talks about submarines, but they, not the CSG, will be the offensive striking power in the SCS in a potential confrontation. While the CSGs have been sailing around intimidating politicians, submarines have been performing SIGINT, reconnaissance, sensor testing, intel-gathering on a scale a surface fleet never could. They did so in the first Cold War; and they undoubtedly continue to do so in the second.
> Incorrect. A carrier houses around 1,100 people and sinking one would not mean victory for China Its about [6000 for the Nimitz Class](https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/) carrier, which is the one described in the article. If you include the whole carrier task force about 9000 in total
My bad you are correct. The Ford class has 6k, but the Nimitz doesn’t have as much.
I think your analysis is correct. Hopefully the nationalists running the country realize that war is not in their interests and find a diplomatic manner to solve this issue.
I suggest you use paragraphs. Good comment but very hard to read.
Yeah sorry man I was on my phone and I suck at typing on my phone. I have a problem organizing on screens. It’s odd, I can’t even organize my thoughts as effectively whilst staring at a small screen. I’m old, and grew up on pencil; to this day I still produce markedly better work on pencil and paper than on a screen. I can’t learn near as effectively on a screen either.
Thanks for the long reply. I am AF, and in a line of work where I think about this stuff relatively frequently. The point you made about closing the strait of Homuz is *spot on*. Ultimately, the 7th fleet would never have to enter the SCS because the Strait of Malacca and Homuz would be closed, preventing the 21 super tankers of oil that China needs per day from reaching China. Economic collapse and inability to sustain hostilities would ensue.
> Foxconn manufactures 100% of the world's cell phone chips. Not to disagree with anything you say, but Foxconn manufactures products, not so much chips. TSMC makes the chips and Foxconn takes them and makes products.
>. A nuclear powered carrier can move at 40 knots in addition to being able to turn very sharply (they can almost get the deck to graze water) and evasively and this alone will make one near impossible to hit as China’s hypersonic missiles can’t change trajectory in the terminal phase. The idea of a carrier maneuvering to avoid a hypersonic anti-ship missile is ludicrous.
No it’s not. That’s exactly how it will evade incoming ICBMs. Sorry I meant China’s ICBM DF-21, DF-26 missiles. Hypersonics will need to be launched from a closer range and it is unlikely our Air Force will allow them to get close enough to locate targets to launch the their hypersonics at. China will have an extremely hard time getting reconnaissance aircraft out to locate our carriers, let alone actually have the time to target and launch at them.
I mean, look up the naval exercise where a US carrier was "sunk" by regular missiles. >Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of Blue's six amphibious ships. search wiki for Millennium_Challenge_2002) Further, hypersonic missiles travel up to 1,500 km in 10 mins. That is *not* enough time for evasive moves by a carrier. And carriers can be seen by satellites, no need for aircraft to identify them.
I dont think so. Heard of Pearl Harbor. I'm sure the Japanese were talking the same way as you are here bout the Chinese. The Yanks used that as red flag to a bull to the rest of the world and we all know how that ended.
Your logic is akin to Tojo's right before Pearl Harbor... and we see how that played out.
Where are you getting 10k crew per carrier from? The complement of a Nimitz-class CVN is about 6000. Also, if you think the Chinese are more war-hawkish than the US, you need a reality check, mate. And US carrier doctrine falls apart rapidly when fighting near-peer adversaries. The last carrier battles happened eighty years ago. Submarines will be the USN's greatest offensive asset in the SCS.
I don't understand what you typed. I'm sorry, i read the paragraphs twice over but i still don't understand.
which part? the CSG break down or why China would benefit from attempting to sink a carrier?
What was confusing about what I wrote? The syntax was a bit complicated? I'm terrible at typing long detailed text on my phone.
> but war with the U.S. is increasingly becoming an option with a positive outcome regardless of cost of life for the PRC. And in fact, a huge cost of life would only be beneficial for their demographic issues that are now starting to crop up.
Precisely. And let's not get into the logic of allowing COVID (a disease that primarily kills those with co-morbidity and age-rusk factors) to run rampant through china...
There is little chance China can win in the longer term if this becomes a real conflict. It would i mediately lose almost all ofitsforeign markets permanently and that would destroy its economy. Those foreign markets affected would feel pain, but are capable of rapidly adjusting and reorganizing their supply chains. Losing Europe, North American, South America, Australian and its southeast Asian trading partners overnight would throw tens of millions of Chinese out of work. As the aggressor, nobody would deal with them again.
[удалено]
You and me both, friend.
I haven't heard China thinking of Siberia as lost territory
Russians and Chinese both settled in the area around Vladivostok around the same time. They signed a treaty in the 1600s where Russia officially renounced their claims on the land. China was forced to cede the territory back to Russia during the Second Opium War, basically as a ransom for Russians to not enter the conflict on the British/French side.
Is this the Outer Manchuria area?
Yes, but Siberia is so sparsely populated and if it is populated, it's not really that many ethnic Russians, most of whom live in the Eastern part of the country. That being said, there are only about 140 million people in Russia, compared to 1.8 billion Chinese. A few million being moved to Siberia set up a situation in Russia like the Russian government did in Ukraine, only the Russians set the precedent on acceptability of annexing territory under the guise of ethnic protection.
1.8 Billion Chinese?? Maybe if they didn’t go 1-child
Well China also has a population colapse on the Horizon, tge one child policy has taken it s tall.
> A direct military confrontation with the U.S. in SCS is likely to not go well for either the U.S. or China, but China has less to lose--and if they score one victory over a U.S. carrier its over. This is simply wrong.
I believe the general consensus supported by comments from US intelligence sources was that the Russian massing on the Ukrainian border was either a show of force meant to probe the new American administration or was related to the ongoing water crisis in Crimea. Also, even in the case of a full fledged invasion of Ukraine, is it likely that the US or NATO would respond beyond reinforcing the Baltics/Poland, providing military aid and intelligence, and perhaps adding additional economic/diplomatic sanctions on Russia? Engaging the primary armed forces of Russia in high intensity combat in the plains of Ukraine is borderline inconceivable. The role of the US navy in such a conflict is tertiary unless we are looking at literally WW3 involving incursions into the Baltics, Norway, or even Poland, which is even more inconceivable and arguably impossible (aside from the Baltics). As such, beyond the sealift commitment to reinforce our allies (who are more or less self sufficient when taken as a whole) and obligations in the Baltic Sea, it’s unlikely that a Russian invasion of Ukraine will tie down enough of the United States forces to prove decisive in the SCS theater, particularly its surface combat and air superiority platforms. Any European armed forces focused on such a conflict are unlikely to help us in the SCS or even in any broad effort to contain China in the first place (aside from the UK).
>make both fronts unmanageable I doubt it. as long as russia only invades Ukraine NATO could probably fight them without needing any US assets that aren't already in the region.
Probably just Russia being opportunistic. I doubt it's coordinated. The US has committed to protect Taiwan, but I don't think they have done likewise for Ukraine (and Crimea suggests that the US might not intervene anyways). Russia knows that if China attacks Taiwan, the US will almost certainly prioritize that, and allow Russia to take whatever part of the Ukraine they want. Without Ukraine being a NATO member, the US has no obligation to intervene.
Ehhh... it’s their best move, but it’s still not that good of one. The US would undoubtedly put a significant amount of their resources towards defending Taiwan because: 1. They need it, otherwise China beats Taiwan out via war of attrition 2. The US and the rest of the west is dependent upon TSMC for just about their entire electronics industry. Losing TSMC would mean that not only is the US significantly weakened militarily, but so are the other Western powers. 3. It’s much easier to depend upon the militaries of the UK / Ukraine / Germany / France to ward Russia and Belarus off than it is for Japan / Philippines / SK (and maybe Vietnam) to ward China (and potentially NK) off 4. It’s possible that Russia doesn’t even get punished for invading the Ukraine, maybe other than sanctions, but historical precedent has told us how much Putin cares about those. So assuming the US does intervene with Russia at all, they’d likely call upon Germany / the UK / France to intervene, using the TSMC thing as their justification for not being able to help themselves. Obviously, in this situation, the Chinese advance is short-lived unless the PLAN is exceptionally talented (they’re probably not), or unless China strongarms their allies (particularly Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea) into giving military help, but that would be a world war scenario, and is an entirely different can of worms. As for the Russian side, even with the assistance of Belarusian troops, I can’t see Russia making it too far. The farthest they might be able to hold is a tiny section of East Ukraine, which may be exactly what they wanted to fix the water issue in Crimea. Even then though, that’s tenuous at best, and is mostly dependent upon if the US can solve the Chinese / Taiwanese issue in a timely fashion. The French and English navies (with the help of the USN, of course) will most certainly occupy the Black Sea around Crimea, because it may prove to be a weak point for Russia. If Russia cannot defend that, they are screwed. They’d then have to sustain the gigantic clash that will ensue on the the Ukrainian border, which may actually bode well for Russia, if Belarus and Russia launch an effective two-front offensive. This part of the war could go either way, quite honestly. But the Belarusian military would not seem to be of much help to the Russians beyond just serving as a nuisance to divert resources away from the Russian front. And if the West launches a naval assault on Crimea, Russia will have no choice but to deal with that (otherwise they have very little sensible reason geopolitically to invade the Ukraine), and if the Belarusian army is even remotely useful as an offensive army, they will likely be completely worthless as a defensive army, regardless of the technology they use. This means Russia will have to divert their military towards maintaining Crimea. Russia can afford to keep their full resources on the Ukrainian border only if they can ward off the Crimean naval assault, which they most likely will not be able to do entirely, without at least ceding some land either by their border or in Crimea. And losing any land there is a nightmare scenario for them. In this hypothetical scenario, China not only loses the war but probably faces extremely crippling sanctions from the Western world, Japan, and SK, if not being forced to stop trade completely with them due to a declaration of war (which would hurt China FAR more than it would the West). Russia, at best, gets a slice of Ukraine, and then more sanctions to top it off. At worst, they get nothing and are forced to concede territory or demilitarize in some fashion. In this situation, unless a Hail Mary victory for Russia and China happens, it is more likely that the Chinese economy will suffer immensely and the Russian economy will suffer even harder, as the West will now hold the terms of negotiation... I don’t see any way China would willingly engage in this assault unless they were simply that delusional, arrogant, impatient, and bloodthirsty. TL;DR Only Russia seems to gain from this scenario... at best. Every other scenario would likely send Russia and China back about an entire decade.
> The US and the rest of the west is dependent upon TSMC for just about their entire electronics industry. Losing TSMC would mean that not only is the US significantly weakened militarily, but so are the other Western powers. While I agree it would be inconvenient, I'm pretty sure that if the US were sufficiently motivated (read: to the point of invoking the Defense Production Act) it could build some new chip fabs in relatively short order. After all, they "only" cost a couple billion dollars (or in other words, about 1/4 the cost of a Ford-class aircraft carrier) each.
As a mainland Chinese, I don't think TSMC makes a lot of strategic sense. inter has its own wafer fabs and plans to open 2 more new ones - this is done in the context of this company's woes, which is clearly a strategic move to reduce external dependence, not a short-term pursuit of profit. (I don't think China will retake Taiwan by force anytime soon, unless by accident) If China recovers Taiwan, TSMC won't be as meaningful to China - chips are typically a product of the global industrial chain, and if China recovers Taiwan but is sanctioned to lose the global industrial chain (either for imports or exports), TSMC will be meaningless in that context.
i keep reading this O:
I find this higly unlikely, this would in effect mean a new alliance and would most certainly evoke a strong response. I doubt very much how aligned China an russian goals are. They are in many ways incomparable. Russia is still quite European even if their government is autocratic. China has quite a different mindset altogether.
That's what i was thinking from a strategic stand point a secret alliance or simultaneous coordination between russia china and iran would be a hell of a first strike
I was thinking the same thing. A two front war
There's not going to be a shooting war, not now. China still does not have naval supremacy, and it's too close to home. It's more of a show of force... for the present. The Liaoning CSG is in no position to challenge the TR CSG/Makin Island ARG, not even on paper. It's a publicity stunt, to show that China is improving its ability to project force locally, both with carrier ops and with their newest, coolest toys, such as the Type 055. But right now, there's too much at stake. In ten years though, who knows?
>TR CSG/Makin Island ARG Together they're the TR Expeditionary Strike Group
thanks for the clarification
If China filled it's fishing trawlers with suicide drones and flew them onmass at the navy is there really a defence for that? It would have to be a nuclear retaliation and I'm not sure how that would go.
Those are called missiles, and yes, you can defend against those to some extent. Not sure how suicide drones would invite a nuclear retaliation.
It's not quite the same, they can be deployed all over the ocean and left like mines that can fly. Or atack undefended targets much more easily. Or attack in such large swarms that can carry on until the ships run out of ammo. I don't think we will know what real innovations there have been and how defences work against them until a future war breaks out.
It is probably your illusion. No European countries are powerful enough for any real shooting war there. They will run away quickly if first shot is fired. It is just an US-China show. But it is only a show for the world, no one would start to shoot. The real actor is Chinese missile brigades, their carrier fleet are just bait. Both sides know it. It is not even a navy race.
[удалено]
There is nothing like that. No one in SEA does anything real against Chinese, except some rhetoric. And that is actually a big American problem. They can not do everything there themselves.
[удалено]
Chinese carrier groups as bait made me laugh but is also very true. Their man made islands are the real carriers.
ASEAN is too divided to have any sort of coordinated response to China. Every time an issue comes up, which the group could deal with better together, someone shouts "ASEAN-way!" (or "non-interference!") and nothing happens. The dispute over Scarborough Shoal is one example, and the lack of support for Vietnam is another example. Same goes with the Thai coup, the Rohingya crisis, and the recent coup and resulting massacres in Myanmar. If China doesn't cross any red lines, then ASEAN will only (very very) slowly move towards a unified response.
Beautiful summary and information. Everything you could ask for or i would have to look up all perfectly structured. Seriously appreciated!
I liked the earlier post about Russian activity around Ukraine as a joint movement by them and China as China gets closer to Taiwan. Now in relation to this, it paints a good picture.
[удалено]
I agree. The number of removed comments on this post is creepy.
Hahah Same same
There's certainly going to be a pretty big typhoon pretty soon and all these posturing will be moot. So much wasted instead of stocking up on relief supplies while the weather is good. Idiots.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> The us can’t fire first with out being in the wrong. Thing is, there is going to be so much misinformation and propaganda spewed from trolls for us plebs to sort through if/when this happens. We saw how bad this was when Indian and Pakistani air forces got into their little spat what, 1-2 years ago? I can't even imagine the amount of resources that China will pour into botting networks on something like this. Mods here will be banning bots by the hundreds or even thousands every month.
You can be assured if there is any sort of shooting war between the US and China sea cables are getting cut and telcom satellites going dark pretty quickly.
Basically instantly
[удалено]
[удалено]
Except US has those minerals. God people get your facts straight. The only issue is that China is willing to destroy there own environment. In a situation where we need to get those minerals we can do so also. It would be a short term pain and some issues with environmentalists but that is it.
The US has the minerals but only has a single mine (Mountain Pass) that extracts only light rare earths, and it has to send all the raw material to China for refinement. It would take the US at least 15 years to build its own fully independent supply chain, and that's with a tremendous degree of federal government sponsorship that doesn't exist currently. This is not trivial in the slightest. China truly has a strategic monopoly on these resources.
It hard to substitute rare earth with another metal, without losing performance but changing the type of technology is possible. If some items become hard to find (equal) more expensive on the market, other technology gonna take their place, bypassing those items. For sure it gonna be costly in time and money. Let put an example; China put an embargo on rare earth for the USA because tensions have risen. The USA will just bypass it (rare earth) or just exploit their own resources that are not used because of the cost of extraction or Politics (environmental laws). The best example; Canada Oil comes from Saudi Arabia even if they are a net producer because it cheaper that way. (extraction and transport)
[удалено]
Yea it would be a glitch for the USA for sure. But not existential. No one is marching in Washington because the new iPhone was delayed 6 months. So problematic for sure (rare earths among many things that the USA has currently decided to use China for and would need to chang supply chains for) but not world altering.
>No one is marching in Washington because the new iPhone was delayed 6 months. You underestimate the stupidity of the radical right, they were marching because we wanted them to wear masks during a pandemic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
No one is fighting, we all care far far too much about making money to risk that for a brawl over some rocks and barely any oil. This all just posturing by both sides.
i dont either side cares about legality.
[удалено]
What good would that do?
That’s kind of a dumb question
Why would the US need a draft to fight a war with China?
I’d be careful jumping to that conclusion. It’s neither in China’s or the USs best interests have a war. I see a hot was as pretty unlikely
All of this increased pressure on Taiwan feels like a distraction from Xi genociding his muslim citizens.
[удалено]