4 ms·

2x what? The total US deployments in Europe are < 70,000 personnel, let alone Eastern Europe in particular. The combat troops that are stationed in Eastern Eu

2x what? The total US deployments in Europe are < 70,000 personnel, let alone Eastern Europe in particular. The combat troops that are stationed in Eastern Europe are there as deterrents, intended to force the Russians to fire on US/NATO forced should they attempt to invade a NATO member. There are no such forces in Ukraine. As for the rest of NATO, it's questionable how much they could readily activate and deploy to Ukraine on short notice. If NATO goes to open war with Russia, that means mobilizing enough to deal with a full scale Russian invasion, which includes defending the Eastern European allies from Russian retaliation. Token forces trickling in won't do it. Air power alone won't do it. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-mili... As for Taiwan, barring immediate Taiwanese surrender China will have to suppress Taiwanese naval and air defenses and then put substantial boots on the ground. The Chinese airborne is not large enough to do the latter on its own, that means amphibious assaults and contested landings. Though they would ultimately succeed were Taiwan left to defend itself, it would take time. Realistically they'd have to do that while dealing with the immediately deployable US carrier groups and air/naval/marine forces from land bases in Guam/Japan/etc. I agree the whole "losing large amounts of only sons" bit is speculation in terms of what impact it would have. Golden parachutes might go a long way. I would say time isn't on China's side at all. It's making more enemies in the world while losing former would-be friends, and is in severe demographic decline, much like Russia. Plus dealing with China is the one thing that currently unites Americans politically, and has lead to the creation of and near universal support for AUKUS, as well as the current trade war. If China keeps upping the confrontation it will only provoke a more severe response from the rest of the world, and if it dials down the confrontation it will eventually be hobbled by demographic decline and other factors. Realistically there's no good option for China to take Taiwan, but the CCP can't admit that. So one way or another there's going to be a show.

dirtyid 5y ago
>2x what? Sorry hastily constructed reply. Typo for 1/2x and instead of "in" East Europe I meant "for" East Europe. Was trying to convey is Russia has built superior posture relative to NATO considering US and EU (lack) of commitment. >The Chinese airborne is not large enough to do the latter on its own, that means amphibious assaults and contested landings PLA war planners have assumed to be able to secure air supremacy and (relatively) uncontested landing within few days with current force balance. Air supremacy + PLA airborne + helicopter transports is assumed to be sufficient to establish mass uncontested landing using civilian transport ships built to military standards. Many US war games seems comport, but even excluding wargames = worst case scenario for show argument, most new western think tank reports have similar conclusions, hence hard press for TW to adopt asymmetric doctrine = currently TW can't buy enough time. Hard to say what actual US involvement will be, but IMO nothing substantial out of Japan (or within 1st island chain), and it takes time for other forces to break into SCS in detail considering SCS bases there to hinder. > making more enemies in the world while losing former would-be friends, I would say PRC has mostly successfully dismantled US political containment plans. Wolf warrior scared ASEAN, SK, perhaps JP into neutrality outside of military theater. AU too far to be relevant except for blockade. AUKUS is basically the weakest minilateral arrangement for PRC containment versus what think tanks thought possible. EU isn't commitmented to pick sides in TW contingency. They're not even pressing further sanctions after PRC counter sanctioned EU sanctions. PRC isn't making friends, but it's eliminating committed enemies. Which is more important for PRC goals. PRC has secured more impunity to pursue security goals than USSR at height of power. Of course USN remains the massive challenge. > is in severe demographic decline, much like Russia. Demographic decline works in PRC favor for security considerations. Less people = less resource = more security = more flexibility to actually pursue security objectives. And even with depressed >10M birth rate, Navy/Air war simply don't require much personnel, there's no shortage of bodies. Also consider PRC is currently only spending 2% on military, 6% is not uncustomary in times of extreme security competition. Even a demographically declining PRC can allocate resources to support military multiple times current size. > Realistically there's no good option for China to take Taiwan, but the CCP can't admit that. Military options for taking TW is largely forgone in PLA literature from last few years. The challenge is still aftermath with US, which CCP readily admits capability gap is large. But if/when PRC accumulates sufficient capabilities to deter US or establish PRC regional hegemony, taking TW is an afterthought. Last year was first time analysis from both US and PRC side is trending towards conclusion force balance will only favor PRC with time, unless tech develops can manifestly shift balance. Realistically no amount of US + co spending and acquisitions is going to match PRC concentrating force in one region. IMO, TW is a sideshow, setting for actual Sino-US security competition. PRC has options for taking TW at anytime, some for deterring US, and very little for defeating US.

dirtyid 5y ago

>2x what? Sorry hastily constructed reply. Typo for 1/2x and instead of "in" East Europe I meant "for" East Europe. Was trying to convey is Russia has built superior posture relative to NATO considering US and EU (lack) of commitment. >The Chinese airborne is not large enough to do the latter on its own, that means amphibious assaults and contested landings PLA war planners have assumed to be able to secure air supremacy and (relatively) uncontested landing within few days with current force balance. Air supremacy + PLA airborne + helicopter transports is assumed to be sufficient to establish mass uncontested landing using civilian transport ships built to military standards. Many US war games seems comport, but even excluding wargames = worst case scenario for show argument, most new western think tank reports have similar conclusions, hence hard press for TW to adopt asymmetric doctrine = currently TW can't buy enough time. Hard to say what actual US involvement will be, but IMO nothing substantial out of Japan (or within 1st island chain), and it takes time for other forces to break into SCS in detail considering SCS bases there to hinder. > making more enemies in the world while losing former would-be friends, I would say PRC has mostly successfully dismantled US political containment plans. Wolf warrior scared ASEAN, SK, perhaps JP into neutrality outside of military theater. AU too far to be relevant except for blockade. AUKUS is basically the weakest minilateral arrangement for PRC containment versus what think tanks thought possible. EU isn't commitmented to pick sides in TW contingency. They're not even pressing further sanctions after PRC counter sanctioned EU sanctions. PRC isn't making friends, but it's eliminating committed enemies. Which is more important for PRC goals. PRC has secured more impunity to pursue security goals than USSR at height of power. Of course USN remains the massive challenge. > is in severe demographic decline, much like Russia. Demographic decline works in PRC favor for security considerations. Less people = less resource = more security = more flexibility to actually pursue security objectives. And even with depressed >10M birth rate, Navy/Air war simply don't require much personnel, there's no shortage of bodies. Also consider PRC is currently only spending 2% on military, 6% is not uncustomary in times of extreme security competition. Even a demographically declining PRC can allocate resources to support military multiple times current size. > Realistically there's no good option for China to take Taiwan, but the CCP can't admit that. Military options for taking TW is largely forgone in PLA literature from last few years. The challenge is still aftermath with US, which CCP readily admits capability gap is large. But if/when PRC accumulates sufficient capabilities to deter US or establish PRC regional hegemony, taking TW is an afterthought. Last year was first time analysis from both US and PRC side is trending towards conclusion force balance will only favor PRC with time, unless tech develops can manifestly shift balance. Realistically no amount of US + co spending and acquisitions is going to match PRC concentrating force in one region. IMO, TW is a sideshow, setting for actual Sino-US security competition. PRC has options for taking TW at anytime, some for deterring US, and very little for defeating US.