2 ms·

That assumes that China just keeps firing an infinite number of missiles. In reality, there is some ratio where the tradeoff no longer makes sense. If one cheap

by jjk166 5y ago

That assumes that China just keeps firing an infinite number of missiles. In reality, there is some ratio where the tradeoff no longer makes sense. If one cheap missile can sink a multibillion dollar aircraft carrier, that's a good deal. If it takes hundreds of these missiles, that's significantly less useful. Further, carriers aren't wimps. These ships were designed to survive nuclear war, with modern damage control actually sinking a ship with a conventional explosive is incredibly difficult. More likely a hit would just result in minor damage that could be repaired at nearby bases. China stands to gain little from invading taiwan - a small province full of disloyal people whose only economic value is in advanced industry which would be destroyed in a war. America, on the other hand, stands to lose everything if it does not defend Taiwan. The moment America can't be trusted to defend its allies, its hegemony is over. No country has the means to touch America in a conventional war, any victory any other power could possibly hope for would be completely pyrrhic. The only unknown is exactly how much of the other nation would be left standing when the Americans decide to go home. There is no logical reason for America to back down first in a game of geopolitical chicken, and everyone knows it. The only winning move for China is not to play.

namelessoracle 5y ago
For China yes. But China doesnt make the moves, its the person leading the country who does. If Xi decides that the calculus benefits him he might make the move. If he succeeds he moves China to the worlds undeniable number 1 super power. He only needs America to blink. And the appearance right now is that American leadership is completely unwilling to challenge China.
- jjk166 5y ago
  Xi didn't get to the top of his party's leadership by misidentifying peoples incentives nor by betting everything on people going against their own self interest. Xi wants to rouse chinese nationalism as a stabilizing influence as china prepares to face several serious challenges in the near future, and saber rattling with a distant opponent is a good way to achieve that aim. Actually going to war is unnecessary and indeed runs directly counter to his goals. Further, Xi is not an autocrat; he certainly holds immense influence over the workings of government, but if he loses the faith of the party by a series of irrational decisions, he will be replaced. America, for its part, has essentially named China its primary adversary and focused all efforts on opposing it economically, diplomatically, and militarily, with wide bipartisan support. Maybe America's current leadership would blink, but its a gamble; a gamble in which if Xi wins he gets basically nothing while if he loses his country burns.
  - namelessoracle 5y ago
    I agree with all of this. But if Xi's internal situation with his party denigrates to the point where he needs to take some kind of major action that boosts his stature, that is when trying to invade Taiwan becomes a possibility. China basically gains nothing from invading Taiwan, but Xi might have some things to gain politically to solidify his position in other words.
matheweis 5y ago
> a hit would just result in minor damage that could be repaired at nearby bases. They don’t have a good track record of late: USS Cole - c4 bomb - 2 years USS Fitzgerald - collision - 3 years USS Bonhomme Richard - fire - scrapped
- jjk166 5y ago
  None of those are carriers nor were any of them hit by missiles. I'm sure you could sink a carrier if you rammed it with a comparably sized ship or if you snuck on board and disabled all the safety systems, but that's easier said than done.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
> If it takes hundreds of these missiles, that's significantly less useful. I wrote "attack scenarios" because if aircraft carriers come within that range then they can be attacked in many different ways, not only with those missiles. Raw numbers mean that they would be sunk sooner than later if China wanted them sunk. > China stands to gain little from invading taiwan Territorial integrity and national feelings are worth a lot to people (Taiwan is importantly located as well). > America, on the other hand, stands to lose everything if it does not defend Taiwan They would help but they would not attack China directly because that would be the scenario in which they would really lose everything. That's also why they have no formal commitment to intervene directly. Neither country wants WWIII but China is probably willing to pay a higher price than the US do because it is a matter of deep national importance for them whereas for the US it really is only prestige and chips (and they are working on mitigating the latter). So what are the US to do if China hypothetically launches an invasion of Taiwan? They would supply weapons and intel as much as they can, implement sanctions against China, and push for international sanctions. But they wouldn't attack a single PLA target because that would open Pandora's box. They never attacked the USSR/Russia for the same reason and China is arguably a more formidable adversary. > No country has the means to touch America in a conventional war, The question is rather whether the US can defeat China in a direct war... They know they can't so they wisely won't start one. It goes both ways, China won't start one, either.
- jjk166 5y ago
  What other means does China have for attacking a carrier 1700 km from its shores? China has been able to live without Taiwan for nearly its entire history, clearly it's not that important. No, America doesn't lose everything in a fight. So long as war stays conventional, it can't be hit; and if war turns nuclear its still in the best position. You have the factors exactly backwards: China has no reason to fight a war except prestige, whereas America has an immense network of alliances that will unravel if it does not fight. If tensions ever rose the point that an invasion of Taiwan was a serious possibility, the US would position forces in close proximity such that China could not attack Taiwan without also attacking the US and thus starting an all out war, which China does not want. It's the same reason the US put military bases all around USSR/Russia - and just like how the USSR never attacked for fear of US retribution, neither will China. How are you defining "defeat China in a direct war"? If your definition is US troops holding a victory parade in Beijing, then probably not. If you use my definition, which is prevent China from taking Taiwan, America is definitely in a good position to win. But again, America already has a free Taiwan, it's China's move.
dirtyid 5y ago
>That assumes that China just keeps firing an infinite number of missiles. In reality, there is some ratio where the tradeoff no longer makes sense. If one cheap missile can sink a multibillion dollar aircraft carrier, that's a good deal. If it takes hundreds of these missiles, that's significantly less useful. Countering anti-ship missiles requires multiple interceptors, which are also very expensive. Tradeoff typically advantages offense, especially closer to land based assets. US carrier group will have limited magazine depth, and any missile dedicated to anti-AShM will take away missile cells for offense. Even hundreds of missiles per carrier group = a few thousands missiles to destroy USNavy capital assets / global hegemony. That's cheap. >There is no logical reason for America to back down first in a game of geopolitical chicken, and everyone knows it. The only winning move for China is not to play. The opposite, caveat being China can't afford not to play with respect to domestic politics especially if initiated by US/TW. That said, general trend of force balance has shifted so much within 1st island chain that US is no longer able to defend TW without pyrric costs. US has every reason to abandon Taiwan, because the prospect of trying to defend TW but failing is much deadlier to US hegemony than abandoning TW (for the 2nd time). US abandoning non security commitment partners is not new, modern US losing a peer war even at theatre level will is. The last thing US article 5 partners want exposed is US security commitment being insufficient for domestic politics. Or the scenario where US succeeds but loses so much assets that they don't have enough to honor security commitments. Which circles back to Chinese AShMs and relevant work on hypersonics. We're approaching the day where PRC will aquire conventional prompt global strike capabilites to strike carriers / capital ships in port, i.e. US naval assets is one deployment away from becoming scrap. Folks are preoccupied with PRC now, but the danger is proliferation of cheap, mature ICBM / AShMs to mid tier countries that eventually, even Iran and North Korea can stalemate USN, across the globe, with very little consideration for kill chains.

by jjk166 5y ago

namelessoracle 5y ago

For China yes. But China doesnt make the moves, its the person leading the country who does. If Xi decides that the calculus benefits him he might make the move. If he succeeds he moves China to the worlds undeniable number 1 super power. He only needs America to blink. And the appearance right now is that American leadership is completely unwilling to challenge China.

jjk166 5y ago
Xi didn't get to the top of his party's leadership by misidentifying peoples incentives nor by betting everything on people going against their own self interest. Xi wants to rouse chinese nationalism as a stabilizing influence as china prepares to face several serious challenges in the near future, and saber rattling with a distant opponent is a good way to achieve that aim. Actually going to war is unnecessary and indeed runs directly counter to his goals. Further, Xi is not an autocrat; he certainly holds immense influence over the workings of government, but if he loses the faith of the party by a series of irrational decisions, he will be replaced. America, for its part, has essentially named China its primary adversary and focused all efforts on opposing it economically, diplomatically, and militarily, with wide bipartisan support. Maybe America's current leadership would blink, but its a gamble; a gamble in which if Xi wins he gets basically nothing while if he loses his country burns.
- namelessoracle 5y ago
  I agree with all of this. But if Xi's internal situation with his party denigrates to the point where he needs to take some kind of major action that boosts his stature, that is when trying to invade Taiwan becomes a possibility. China basically gains nothing from invading Taiwan, but Xi might have some things to gain politically to solidify his position in other words.

matheweis 5y ago

> a hit would just result in minor damage that could be repaired at nearby bases. They don’t have a good track record of late: USS Cole - c4 bomb - 2 years USS Fitzgerald - collision - 3 years USS Bonhomme Richard - fire - scrapped

jjk166 5y ago
None of those are carriers nor were any of them hit by missiles. I'm sure you could sink a carrier if you rammed it with a comparably sized ship or if you snuck on board and disabled all the safety systems, but that's easier said than done.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

> If it takes hundreds of these missiles, that's significantly less useful. I wrote "attack scenarios" because if aircraft carriers come within that range then they can be attacked in many different ways, not only with those missiles. Raw numbers mean that they would be sunk sooner than later if China wanted them sunk. > China stands to gain little from invading taiwan Territorial integrity and national feelings are worth a lot to people (Taiwan is importantly located as well). > America, on the other hand, stands to lose everything if it does not defend Taiwan They would help but they would not attack China directly because that would be the scenario in which they would really lose everything. That's also why they have no formal commitment to intervene directly. Neither country wants WWIII but China is probably willing to pay a higher price than the US do because it is a matter of deep national importance for them whereas for the US it really is only prestige and chips (and they are working on mitigating the latter). So what are the US to do if China hypothetically launches an invasion of Taiwan? They would supply weapons and intel as much as they can, implement sanctions against China, and push for international sanctions. But they wouldn't attack a single PLA target because that would open Pandora's box. They never attacked the USSR/Russia for the same reason and China is arguably a more formidable adversary. > No country has the means to touch America in a conventional war, The question is rather whether the US can defeat China in a direct war... They know they can't so they wisely won't start one. It goes both ways, China won't start one, either.

jjk166 5y ago
What other means does China have for attacking a carrier 1700 km from its shores? China has been able to live without Taiwan for nearly its entire history, clearly it's not that important. No, America doesn't lose everything in a fight. So long as war stays conventional, it can't be hit; and if war turns nuclear its still in the best position. You have the factors exactly backwards: China has no reason to fight a war except prestige, whereas America has an immense network of alliances that will unravel if it does not fight. If tensions ever rose the point that an invasion of Taiwan was a serious possibility, the US would position forces in close proximity such that China could not attack Taiwan without also attacking the US and thus starting an all out war, which China does not want. It's the same reason the US put military bases all around USSR/Russia - and just like how the USSR never attacked for fear of US retribution, neither will China. How are you defining "defeat China in a direct war"? If your definition is US troops holding a victory parade in Beijing, then probably not. If you use my definition, which is prevent China from taking Taiwan, America is definitely in a good position to win. But again, America already has a free Taiwan, it's China's move.

dirtyid 5y ago

>That assumes that China just keeps firing an infinite number of missiles. In reality, there is some ratio where the tradeoff no longer makes sense. If one cheap missile can sink a multibillion dollar aircraft carrier, that's a good deal. If it takes hundreds of these missiles, that's significantly less useful. Countering anti-ship missiles requires multiple interceptors, which are also very expensive. Tradeoff typically advantages offense, especially closer to land based assets. US carrier group will have limited magazine depth, and any missile dedicated to anti-AShM will take away missile cells for offense. Even hundreds of missiles per carrier group = a few thousands missiles to destroy USNavy capital assets / global hegemony. That's cheap. >There is no logical reason for America to back down first in a game of geopolitical chicken, and everyone knows it. The only winning move for China is not to play. The opposite, caveat being China can't afford not to play with respect to domestic politics especially if initiated by US/TW. That said, general trend of force balance has shifted so much within 1st island chain that US is no longer able to defend TW without pyrric costs. US has every reason to abandon Taiwan, because the prospect of trying to defend TW but failing is much deadlier to US hegemony than abandoning TW (for the 2nd time). US abandoning non security commitment partners is not new, modern US losing a peer war even at theatre level will is. The last thing US article 5 partners want exposed is US security commitment being insufficient for domestic politics. Or the scenario where US succeeds but loses so much assets that they don't have enough to honor security commitments. Which circles back to Chinese AShMs and relevant work on hypersonics. We're approaching the day where PRC will aquire conventional prompt global strike capabilites to strike carriers / capital ships in port, i.e. US naval assets is one deployment away from becoming scrap. Folks are preoccupied with PRC now, but the danger is proliferation of cheap, mature ICBM / AShMs to mid tier countries that eventually, even Iran and North Korea can stalemate USN, across the globe, with very little consideration for kill chains.