China and the West…

[Zorral]

6 hours ago, Toth said:

I doubt that China's military would be as much of a shit show as Russia's ...

Also, considering its population is much much much greater than Russia's.

[Kalbear]

Chinese military has a few things going for it.

- the military is designed around China's sphere of influence. It doesn't have a ton of expensive aircraft carriers or the ability to launch cruise missiles anywhere in the world, but it can do a whole lot of invading of Taiwan- or Russia, or India, or places nearby. It has far fewer actions and is focused on those.

- China is fine with losing people. This means certain tactics are allowed and work well for them, and are hard to resist from western military viewpoints. An example is they don't need to have tanks that can take on Abrams if they can spend a couple hundred people armed with LAWs to take them down.

- China's military is built largely around fighting the US via economic attrition. They have bet that they can spend less to blow up a us aircraft carrier than the US loses in cost. Same with hitting those US aircraft.

- China is far more modern than other developing nation's militaries in the world that the us has fought or helps fight. They rely on combined arms, on electronic countermeasures, on cyberattacks, on infrastructure disruption. A fight with China would be a very different thing than the US is used to, and it would likely be able to actually harm the US citizens in ways we don't grasp.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Kalnestk Oblast

[Toth]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

Also, considering its population is much much much greater than Russia's.

Well, as long as they don't consider making them swim to Taiwan, that won't factor in too much. But they do have lots of toys to equip them with and even more industrial capacity to keep making more. It really just stands and falls with the question whether their navy is high tech enough to manage an amphibious assault while facing down the US navy without getting shredded in the attempt.

[Zorral]

4 minutes ago, Toth said:

as long as they don't consider making them swim to Taiwan, that won't factor in too much

Considering how many people Russia's lost in that meat grinder known as Ukraine, it factors into Russia's capacities to deal meat grinder methods, as was observed\ above (and that of everyone else too, including the US):

 

19 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

his means certain tactics are allowed and work well for them, and are hard to resist from western military viewpoints. An example is they don't need to have tanks that can take on Abrams if they can spend a couple hundred people armed with LAWs to take them down.

 

[Toth]

Just now, Zorral said:

Considering how many people Russia's lost in that meat grinder known as Ukraine, it factors into Russia's capacities to deal meat grinder methods, as was observed\ above (and that of everyone else too, including the US):

Mmh... I guess my main assumption is that if this happens, it won't be much of a land war where this factors in heavily. If the US manages to neutralize the Chinese navy, Taiwan will win. If the Chinese navy manages to secure a corridor to Taiwan and establishes a beachhead, then China wins. Taiwan is more than sixteen times smaller than Ukraine, I may be naive, but I don't see much space where they could get bogged down behind the beaches.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Toth said:

Mmh... I guess my main assumption is that if this happens, it won't be much of a land war where this factors in heavily. If the US manages to neutralize the Chinese navy, Taiwan will win. If the Chinese navy manages to secure a corridor to Taiwan and establishes a beachhead, then China wins. Taiwan is more than sixteen times smaller than Ukraine, I may be naive, but I don't see much space where they could get bogged down behind the beaches.

No offense meant, but you're thinking in ww2 terms.

China will attempt to secure the beaches by massive missile artillery and ballistic strikes that require no navy to launch. They will be attacking airfields as far as the Phillipines. They will be launching small boat attacks against us major assets in the dozens. They will be using hundreds of drone strikes.

AND they will be doing that and launching amphibious assaults and aircraft sorties and cyberattacks against Taiwan, all at the same time.

A beachhead isn't really that useful for China by comparison because as you say, this ain't a land war. But it also isn't the threat. The threat is the US capability and the Taiwan capability.

[Kalbear]

This is a good recent study on what might happen. 

https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-battle-next-war-wargaming-chinese-invasion-taiwan

For them the results were usually chinese defeat at the cost of Taiwan being completely hosed and the US losing trillions in equipment, tens of thousands of personnel and both the US and China being significantly weakened.

[Toth]

3 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

This is a good recent study on what might happen. 

https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-battle-next-war-wargaming-chinese-invasion-taiwan

For them the results were usually chinese defeat at the cost of Taiwan being completely hosed and the US losing trillions in equipment, tens of thousands of personnel and both the US and China being significantly weakened.

Okay thanks. I must admit, I guess I didn't take into account that China would go for a first strike against US presence in the area, simply because the idea of a nuclear power directly attacking a nuclear power is just too insane and so expected to go for a speed rush like Russia did and hope the US would be too dumbstruck to intervene. I suppose it makes sense if there is something of a silent agreement that the conflict will be contained to the area...

[Kalbear]

A lot also depends on how much warning the US has. China can reasonably blockade Taiwan and strike fast and it may take days or weeks for the US to deploy fleet level strength. Most of the wargaming indicated the air strength of the US would be destroyed on the runways.

There are a lot of variables. But the biggest thing is that the US military for the last 30 years has been focused on dealing with asymmetric warfare, insurgency and land war in Europe, with some parts devoted to Asiaa and China. And for the most part China capabilities have been targeted at one major thing - dealing with the US in Chinese influenced areas.

[SeanF]

We don’t know how China would fare in war, as it has no recent military experience.  In its last war, it did not distinguish itself.

My own view is that an attempt to conquer Taiwan would end in disaster for China.

A lot of popular military commentary assumes that people living under dictatorships are tougher and braver and better fighters than the decadents who live in democracies.

That’s not something I would bet on.

[Kalbear]

23 minutes ago, SeanF said:

We don’t know how China would fare in war, as it has no recent military experience.  In its last war, it did not distinguish itself.

My own view is that an attempt to conquer Taiwan would end in disaster for China.

A lot of popular military commentary assumes that people living under dictatorships are tougher and braver and better fighters than the decadents who live in democracies.

That’s not something I would bet on.

I don't think that's accurate at all. That certainly isn't what most actual military experts are basing their viewpoints on. 

As always there's going to be a when the rubber hits the road moment, but that's also true for the US; the US has not faced anything that, say, threatens their navy or can obliterate air bases or can wage a massive cyberwar against the US directly. The US has a LOT of experience dealing with insurgency and counterterrorism, but it has almost no real experience in fighting any kind of war that challenges them for a similarly long period of time. This is being shown in Ukraine, where US and Western tactics are not as useful in a lot of places as the types of tactics that Ukrainians have invented. And this is especially the case where the Western way of war - using heavy air support - is completely unable to work in theater. 

And that would almost certainly be the case in any China combat. Good luck flying an F-35 to get air superiority over anything close to the Chinese mainland.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

I don't think that's accurate at all. That certainly isn't what most actual military experts are basing their viewpoints on. 

As always there's going to be a when the rubber hits the road moment, but that's also true for the US; the US has not faced anything that, say, threatens their navy or can obliterate air bases or can wage a massive cyberwar against the US directly. The US has a LOT of experience dealing with insurgency and counterterrorism, but it has almost no real experience in fighting any kind of war that challenges them for a similarly long period of time. This is being shown in Ukraine, where US and Western tactics are not as useful in a lot of places as the types of tactics that Ukrainians have invented. And this is especially the case where the Western way of war - using heavy air support - is completely unable to work in theater. 

And that would almost certainly be the case in any China combat. Good luck flying an F-35 to get air superiority over anything close to the Chinese mainland.

There seems a widespread assumption that the Taiwanese will just roll over if/when China invades. If not from the experts, certainly from many commentators. That’s one of the things I would not bet on.

Taiwan is in a similar position to Israel, in that military defeat is existential.  The fact that people have no option but to fight is a huge motivator to do so.

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, Toth said:

Okay thanks. I must admit, I guess I didn't take into account that China would go for a first strike against US presence in the area, simply because the idea of a nuclear power directly attacking a nuclear power is just too insane and so expected to go for a speed rush like Russia did and hope the US would be too dumbstruck to intervene. I suppose it makes sense if there is something of a silent agreement that the conflict will be contained to the area...

That's an extraordinarily dangerous gamble. In a war where two nuclear powers are fighting one another and cruise missiles and artillery is flying around, and a lot of that stuff is dual-use (i.e. it could be conventional or nuclear), then the risk of an accident or one side suddenly erupting in paranoia and deciding to use nuclear weapons raises exponentially.

There is also the fact that China might not act alone, but in concert with North Korea attacking the South and Japan, Iran and Syria attacking US assets and allies in the Middle East (with maybe some traditional US allies like Saudi Arabia deciding to stay out of it rather than help the US) and Russia perhaps acting elsewhere to tie down US European forces and NATO, effectively triggering WWIII, in the event of which nuclear use would become near-inevitable.

I would say that China may also take the view that it can afford to lose in the short term to win in the long term. A short-term conflict where they initially fail to take Taiwan but destroys a lot of American hardware might be fine because they figure they can bounce back hard and fast to rebuild their forces and try again within a few years, when the US is still arguing over budget appropriations for the replacement material.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Werthead

[Kalbear]

Just now, SeanF said:

There seems a widespread assumption that the Taiwanese will just roll over if/when China invades. If not from the experts, certainly from many commentators. That’s one of the things I would not bet on.

Taiwan is in a similar position to Israel, in that military defeat is existential.  The fact that people have no option but to fight is a huge motivator to do so.

I don't think that's entirely accurate on a lot of levels. 

Taiwan is very motivated to not roll over, but they will exist under Chinese rule. China has never said that they want to eradicate all the Taiwanese. 

None of the wargames or scenarios I've seen or talked about indicate Taiwan will just roll over. That said, Taiwan military capabilities - especially their navy and air force - are almost certainly going to be wiped off the map the first hours of any major attack, and Taiwanese resolve doesn't factor into that at all. Taiwan has said that they want to go for a more 'porcupine' strategy but that hasn't gelled with the actual military they have or the requisitions that they're requesting. 

And ultimately this doesn't matter. China has a large enough presence and military that even if Taiwan resists via guerrila tactics or even human suicides China will still own the island and have operational control, the same way that the US did over Iraq and Afghanistan. 

[Werthead]

I would say that there is a massive uncertainty factor in such a showdown, probably enough to deter China in the immediate to short term unless they get an unambiguous sign that the US would not interfere (so post the 2024 election, perhaps). I do think that China will 100% invade immediately if Taiwan declares independence, though, or if it perhaps starts crossing certain lines (i.e. vast numbers of American troops landing on the island). The Chinese government doesn't get emotional about much, but the last holdout of their predecessors' 1949 victory is one of the things that will do that.

I do think Xi wants the job done on his watch, though, and turning 70 (despite apparently excellent health) I think he will be looking to accomplishing the task in the medium future. I think he would much prefer to do it by other means, and it's interesting that he held long talks with Macron over the issue and invited a previous, more pro-China Taiwanese leader to tour the country, perhaps with a view to the 2024 election in Taiwan and the possibility that Taiwan might simply decide that the cost of resisting the invasion would not be worth it.

[Darzin]

In some of my darker moments I wonder if it might be better to strike a Hong Kong style deal over Taiwan. Something like Taiwan keeps it's system for 50 years but electing a governor instead of a president and with open immigration for Taiwan passport holders to the US. The US Navy still has the power to project across the pacific and press China on it's borders in the South China sea and Taiwan straight but that won't last forever. I suspect Chinese strategy is force this kind of union rather than a shooting war. Though the fact that both US and Chinese planners seem to think a naval shooting war can be kept conventional rather scary.

I do worry about a Chinese miscalculation on this. No one in China views Taiwan as a real country it's viewed as something akin to the Donetsk People's republic. But no one here seems to get that just because foreign governments have been pressured into the one China policy doesn't  mean people really believe it. Hopefully the leadership is better informed but I see a real potential for error based on what here is viewed super seriously and in the rest of the world is a legal fig leaf. 

[Darzin]

13 hours ago, SeanF said:

Taiwan is in a similar position to Israel, in that military defeat is existential.  The fact that people have no option but to fight is a huge motivator to do so.

You'd think that but if you compare their military to Israel they are significantly underinvesting in it despite being under much greater threat. The ROC military is only 20% larger than the Israeli one despite having around three times the population eligible for conscription, and being under significantly greater threat. Even Singapore operates more and better submarines that the ROC despite fact that Singapore has a quarter of the population and that these type of subs would be extremely useful in the event of a cross straight war. 

[Loge]

A preemptive strike against the US and its allies is a great way to start WWIII. Also doesn't really agree with the narrative that China is just taking back its territory. The US defending Taiwan is one thing. But China attacking US bases in Japan means all-out war. What is to keep the US from attacking the Chinese mainland?

[Jace, Extat]

On 4/14/2023 at 8:07 AM, Loge said:

A preemptive strike against the US and its allies is a great way to start WWIII. Also doesn't really agree with the narrative that China is just taking back its territory. The US defending Taiwan is one thing. But China attacking US bases in Japan means all-out war. What is to keep the US from attacking the Chinese mainland?

A sudden and crushing urgency not to get a few hundred thousand American boys and girls massacred in Asia. 

You do realize that Americans are no longer a rah rah expeditionary cowboyland people right? 

Like, we're all factoring that into our projections right? 

Americans are fat, lazy, entitled pieces of shit who wouldn't piss on a passerby if they were on fire unless there's a crypto scam involved. Any of the ones who aren't as described have money. Why would they give up their Youtube starlet careers to get murdered by communists in a war for a currency (the U.S. Dollar, keep up) they don't believe in?

I mean, the idea that the U.S. could have the POLITICAL willpower to trade punches with a kind of enemy that views human life as just another calculus is... I'll just say it... STUPID 

Sorry. It's dumb. We were checkmated here in 2016. 

No, China doesn't want to flatten Taiwan. No, they don't need to. They're already winning. They've just gotta wait. 

Not all wars are fought with battles of tanks and battalions of men. This is a -new- kind of war. 

And you're llllllllllllooooosing! 

It'll be a helluva day when Marjorie Taylor Green and Ben Shapiro team up as the Peace at All Costs (FOR THE 'CONOMY!) ticket. 

I'll have my popcorn. 

 

PS: Is Shapiro an American? I don't care, he talks fast and has a distinctive speaking style. He could be president if he wanted to. All those back catalogues of podcasts or whatever would be like crack cocaine to his new Con-serv-a-Right political coalition. It'd be fucking awesome. After years of being incel fuckwads who have to pretend to not-not like Jews all of his fanbois could evolve into incel fuckwads who get to wave the fact that they voted for a Jew like it's a fucking pride flag, but for the political right. 

And that's just ONE random example. I'm not -predicting- Shapiro gets into politics or teams up with MTG. But it really ain't as farfetched as you'd like it to be when you start thinking about it. And that's the proof that we're doomed. I can feasibly posit circumstances in which a mental invalid and a whatever-youtuber become leaders of one country. China, different. Better. 

I'm out

Edited April 16, 2023 by Secretary of Eumenes

[Jace, Extat]

 

Spoiler

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Jace, Extat