10 ms·

The USA has been losing all war games where it defends Tawain against China. https://nypost.com/2021/03/11/us-war-games-over-china-threat-warn-of-likely-defeat

The USA has been losing all war games where it defends Tawain against China. https://nypost.com/2021/03/11/us-war-games-over-china-threat-warn-of-likely-defeat-report/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/11/us-war-games-over-china-threat... It is not okay to assume USA supremacy against adversaries anymore. Why Americans still do business with China is astounding to me.

tw04 5y ago
> the latest war game was based on a Chinese biological-weapon attack that swept through US bases and warships in the Indo-Pacific region more than a decade in the future If China starts a war by releasing a biological weapon, Taiwan will be the least of their concerns. I don't see any scenario in which every Western and neutral nation on Earth doesn't turn against them. Maybe Russia helps, but I doubt it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nradov 5y ago
  If such a weapon were to be used it would probably be done covertly with plausible deniability. Maybe a false flag operation.
  - ilaksh 5y ago
    Hmm. Hard to imagine. Nothing remotely similar has ever happened. But, now that I think of it, the consequence might be something like a pandemic, which coincidentally we are in now.
neom 5y ago
The only thing that will stop china from interfering in Taiwan is, universal consciousness willing, South Korea and Japan along with the other Asian nations having enough sway with China to keep them at bay. I very much prefer not to entertain WW3, but as others have said many times recently, if it is going to start, it may very well be over Taiwan.
- tomrod 5y ago
  The issue is, the CCP sees Taiwan as theirs when in reality China belongs to Taiwan. It would seem a treaty acknowledging Taiwan as an independent sovereign would be an ideal outcome, but it's weird to see nations express wounded pride, imo
  - nl 5y ago
    > The issue is, the CCP sees Taiwan as theirs when in reality China belongs to Taiwan. What on earth is this supposed to mean? I'm no fan of the Chinese government, but trying to claim it is illegitimate seems a pretty big stretch.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      Why?
      - neom 5y ago
        I also don't understand your comment. I went so far as to quickly skim through the history of Taiwan and I don't understand why you said China belongs to Taiwan?
        nl 5y ago
        I expect his argument is that the former national government of mainland China fled to Taiwan during the revolution. This is true, but it doesn't make a strong argument for legitimacy. Former governments flee countries frequently, and unless there is a rapidly implemented plan to try to get them back into power they are generally ignored. Taiwan is better viewed as a breakaway state than having any legitimate stake in the government of mainland China.
        anonymousiam 5y ago
        One could even argue that the agreement Great Britain had for the 100 year lease of Hong Kong was with the Nationalist (Taiwan) government and not the PRC.
frostburg 5y ago
Keep in mind that those results are publicized to argue for budgets.
- darkerside 5y ago
  This is definition of ad hominem. Sure, there's a motivation, but do you think the war games are a conspiracy? I don't find it difficult to imagine the US would fail to protect an ally on enemy turf.
jollybean 5y ago
1) "Last fall, the latest war game was based on a Chinese biological-weapon attack that swept through US bases and warships in the Indo-Pacific region" These are superfluous conditions (i.e. predicting bioweapons), and of course, and you're not going to hear about the 'real' results. And of course it ignores the after effects. 2) Defenders have considerable advantage in that situation, especially with a water gap. The 'amphibious assault' situation is severely hampered by the fact that even with air cover, all Chinese surface vessels are 'extremely vulnerable'. Literally just a single, 2-man style team weapon system, if it could actually be deployed without sabotage, could make it nary impossible for such landings. I think it would be crazy for Taiwan not to have specialty capabilities against that kind of assault. Landing operations very dangerous for the landers. 3) Taiwan has 23M most of whom won't go down without a fight. It's incredibly difficult to occupy a place like that. 4) The 'angle' for China is likely political, and to land a vanguard of political operatives, saboteurs of all kinds, media controllers etc. and possibly to try a 'coup from within' as opposed to a frontal military confrontation. 5) Any direct military engagement would be met with pretty serious repercussions, for the first time maybe, from the West. It would be 'a big deal'. If there were actually even a small US confrontation and say a couple of US frigates were sunk ... don't underestimate how Americans will rally under the wrath of that offence. 90% of the generally anti-war voices will quiet and look the other way while the 'other half' of the US releases the dragons in one way or another. If, as in the stated example there were 'Bioweapons' used against the US, then it would be WW3 level escalation and a nuclear standoff. So again 'military confrontation' is a big deal, but 'military confrontation with Americans' is a much bigger deal they won't forget. In either case, the tide of geopolitics will shift dramatically. NPTO - the Asian equivalent of NATO would be formed instantly, with UK and EU as participating members. TPP v2 - this would happen immediately and China would be de-facto ignored / out of the WTO. There would be a China v. 'Almost Everyone Else' Cold War in which everyone would be forced to choose sides. In that scenario, there are actually very few places that would chose China, if forced. Aside from Russia, which would try to 'broker peace' (and of course Iran/N. Korea/Afghanistan/Syria) I think the only real holdouts would be in Africa, and they wouldn't be consequential. The Arab world would mostly go 'With the US/EU-led rest of the world' and so would South American for the most part. 6) We 'do business' with Taiwan in the hope that they can remain at least at their current levels of independence. If China wants to take Taiwan and leverage the kind of spineless 'look the other way' artefact of our businesses and politicians they'll do it piece by piece, and/or make it look like a popular and legitimate 'coup' - and that Chinese forces are there 'only to ensure order and stability' and to 'protect democracy'. They need to give enough political cover to Nike, Pizza Hut and Apple to not pull out from China etc.. Kind of like Crimea, where we just 'forgot about it'.
ranger207 5y ago
Wargames are designed to be lost. It's not as useful to say "welp we stomped all over them" as it is to push the forces being tested further and further until they break, then fixing or compensating where it broke and pushing even further. Wargames aren't constrained by reality, and the game's opposing force may be more powerful than in reality. Just hearing that the US lost a wargame doesn't mean anything without knowing more details. Think of a wargame as the military's version of a pentest.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  I mean, they’re playing a wargame against themselves, so technically they won too.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  Sure, but you can also examine recent US defense proposals / thinktank wonks gaming out indo pacific strategy, i.e. AGILE deployment in Japan, hosting IRBMs in region. The overwhelming pattern and prevailing consensus for those that follow the space is that despite proposals being aspirational / borderline geopolitical fantasy, US blobs aren't even pretending to pursue strategies that explicitly defend TW anymore. Force balance has changed so much with PRC military modernization that US simply cannot defend TW against PRC off her shores. So much so that it's barely worth speculating anymore. Focus is on containing PRC which =/= defending TW. Entirely different propositions that normies still try to conflate with TW defense.
  - dforrestwilson 5y ago
    Japan would care a lot if China made a move on Taiwan. They recently strengthened defense ties there. Wouldn't just be the U.S. Oh, and two of the above mentioned countries have real blue water navies that can go anywhere to cut supply lines like say, oil from the Middle East. One does not.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      There is absolutely nothing that Japan could do. Cutting oil from the ME would not be enough. China would ration oil and increase imports from Russia massively as well as reactivate domestic oil production, it would be great for the environment, China would carry on, and the US would make a lot of enemies.
andruby 5y ago
I am a European and the idea that two superpowers would actually go to full-on war seems absurd. At least, I hope all sides agree that it is a terrible idea. We haven't had full-on war between two sides that are "in the same league" since WW2. The cold war was tense, and there have been proxy wars, or wars between a super power and a tiny power. When two sides are matched somewhat evenly, that's when the loss of life has been dramatic, as we've seen in both world wars. I really hope I don't see a full on war between super powers in my or my children's lifetimes, because it would be brutal. I mean, would we really see aircraft carriers and bombers in action? submarines? Will both sides blow up each other's satellites and create a Kessler syndrome? At which point do they start threatening with nukes? No, I can imagine some power projection and rough play, but I don't think anyone is considering full-on war.

tw04 5y ago

> the latest war game was based on a Chinese biological-weapon attack that swept through US bases and warships in the Indo-Pacific region more than a decade in the future If China starts a war by releasing a biological weapon, Taiwan will be the least of their concerns. I don't see any scenario in which every Western and neutral nation on Earth doesn't turn against them. Maybe Russia helps, but I doubt it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nradov 5y ago
If such a weapon were to be used it would probably be done covertly with plausible deniability. Maybe a false flag operation.
- ilaksh 5y ago
  Hmm. Hard to imagine. Nothing remotely similar has ever happened. But, now that I think of it, the consequence might be something like a pandemic, which coincidentally we are in now.

neom 5y ago

The only thing that will stop china from interfering in Taiwan is, universal consciousness willing, South Korea and Japan along with the other Asian nations having enough sway with China to keep them at bay. I very much prefer not to entertain WW3, but as others have said many times recently, if it is going to start, it may very well be over Taiwan.

tomrod 5y ago
The issue is, the CCP sees Taiwan as theirs when in reality China belongs to Taiwan. It would seem a treaty acknowledging Taiwan as an independent sovereign would be an ideal outcome, but it's weird to see nations express wounded pride, imo
- nl 5y ago
  > The issue is, the CCP sees Taiwan as theirs when in reality China belongs to Taiwan. What on earth is this supposed to mean? I'm no fan of the Chinese government, but trying to claim it is illegitimate seems a pretty big stretch.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    Why?
    - neom 5y ago
      I also don't understand your comment. I went so far as to quickly skim through the history of Taiwan and I don't understand why you said China belongs to Taiwan?
      - nl 5y ago
        I expect his argument is that the former national government of mainland China fled to Taiwan during the revolution. This is true, but it doesn't make a strong argument for legitimacy. Former governments flee countries frequently, and unless there is a rapidly implemented plan to try to get them back into power they are generally ignored. Taiwan is better viewed as a breakaway state than having any legitimate stake in the government of mainland China.
        anonymousiam 5y ago
        One could even argue that the agreement Great Britain had for the 100 year lease of Hong Kong was with the Nationalist (Taiwan) government and not the PRC.

frostburg 5y ago

Keep in mind that those results are publicized to argue for budgets.

darkerside 5y ago
This is definition of ad hominem. Sure, there's a motivation, but do you think the war games are a conspiracy? I don't find it difficult to imagine the US would fail to protect an ally on enemy turf.

jollybean 5y ago

1) "Last fall, the latest war game was based on a Chinese biological-weapon attack that swept through US bases and warships in the Indo-Pacific region" These are superfluous conditions (i.e. predicting bioweapons), and of course, and you're not going to hear about the 'real' results. And of course it ignores the after effects. 2) Defenders have considerable advantage in that situation, especially with a water gap. The 'amphibious assault' situation is severely hampered by the fact that even with air cover, all Chinese surface vessels are 'extremely vulnerable'. Literally just a single, 2-man style team weapon system, if it could actually be deployed without sabotage, could make it nary impossible for such landings. I think it would be crazy for Taiwan not to have specialty capabilities against that kind of assault. Landing operations very dangerous for the landers. 3) Taiwan has 23M most of whom won't go down without a fight. It's incredibly difficult to occupy a place like that. 4) The 'angle' for China is likely political, and to land a vanguard of political operatives, saboteurs of all kinds, media controllers etc. and possibly to try a 'coup from within' as opposed to a frontal military confrontation. 5) Any direct military engagement would be met with pretty serious repercussions, for the first time maybe, from the West. It would be 'a big deal'. If there were actually even a small US confrontation and say a couple of US frigates were sunk ... don't underestimate how Americans will rally under the wrath of that offence. 90% of the generally anti-war voices will quiet and look the other way while the 'other half' of the US releases the dragons in one way or another. If, as in the stated example there were 'Bioweapons' used against the US, then it would be WW3 level escalation and a nuclear standoff. So again 'military confrontation' is a big deal, but 'military confrontation with Americans' is a much bigger deal they won't forget. In either case, the tide of geopolitics will shift dramatically. NPTO - the Asian equivalent of NATO would be formed instantly, with UK and EU as participating members. TPP v2 - this would happen immediately and China would be de-facto ignored / out of the WTO. There would be a China v. 'Almost Everyone Else' Cold War in which everyone would be forced to choose sides. In that scenario, there are actually very few places that would chose China, if forced. Aside from Russia, which would try to 'broker peace' (and of course Iran/N. Korea/Afghanistan/Syria) I think the only real holdouts would be in Africa, and they wouldn't be consequential. The Arab world would mostly go 'With the US/EU-led rest of the world' and so would South American for the most part. 6) We 'do business' with Taiwan in the hope that they can remain at least at their current levels of independence. If China wants to take Taiwan and leverage the kind of spineless 'look the other way' artefact of our businesses and politicians they'll do it piece by piece, and/or make it look like a popular and legitimate 'coup' - and that Chinese forces are there 'only to ensure order and stability' and to 'protect democracy'. They need to give enough political cover to Nike, Pizza Hut and Apple to not pull out from China etc.. Kind of like Crimea, where we just 'forgot about it'.

ranger207 5y ago

Wargames are designed to be lost. It's not as useful to say "welp we stomped all over them" as it is to push the forces being tested further and further until they break, then fixing or compensating where it broke and pushing even further. Wargames aren't constrained by reality, and the game's opposing force may be more powerful than in reality. Just hearing that the US lost a wargame doesn't mean anything without knowing more details. Think of a wargame as the military's version of a pentest.

Aeolun 5y ago
I mean, they’re playing a wargame against themselves, so technically they won too.
dirtyid 5y ago
Sure, but you can also examine recent US defense proposals / thinktank wonks gaming out indo pacific strategy, i.e. AGILE deployment in Japan, hosting IRBMs in region. The overwhelming pattern and prevailing consensus for those that follow the space is that despite proposals being aspirational / borderline geopolitical fantasy, US blobs aren't even pretending to pursue strategies that explicitly defend TW anymore. Force balance has changed so much with PRC military modernization that US simply cannot defend TW against PRC off her shores. So much so that it's barely worth speculating anymore. Focus is on containing PRC which =/= defending TW. Entirely different propositions that normies still try to conflate with TW defense.
- dforrestwilson 5y ago
  Japan would care a lot if China made a move on Taiwan. They recently strengthened defense ties there. Wouldn't just be the U.S. Oh, and two of the above mentioned countries have real blue water navies that can go anywhere to cut supply lines like say, oil from the Middle East. One does not.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    There is absolutely nothing that Japan could do. Cutting oil from the ME would not be enough. China would ration oil and increase imports from Russia massively as well as reactivate domestic oil production, it would be great for the environment, China would carry on, and the US would make a lot of enemies.

andruby 5y ago

I am a European and the idea that two superpowers would actually go to full-on war seems absurd. At least, I hope all sides agree that it is a terrible idea. We haven't had full-on war between two sides that are "in the same league" since WW2. The cold war was tense, and there have been proxy wars, or wars between a super power and a tiny power. When two sides are matched somewhat evenly, that's when the loss of life has been dramatic, as we've seen in both world wars. I really hope I don't see a full on war between super powers in my or my children's lifetimes, because it would be brutal. I mean, would we really see aircraft carriers and bombers in action? submarines? Will both sides blow up each other's satellites and create a Kessler syndrome? At which point do they start threatening with nukes? No, I can imagine some power projection and rough play, but I don't think anyone is considering full-on war.