5 ms·

This would be a mistake: since the Millennium Challenge war games [1] its been apparent the US is making some very bold (read: dangerous) assumptions about the

by XorNot 4y ago

This would be a mistake: since the Millennium Challenge war games [1] its been apparent the US is making some very bold (read: dangerous) assumptions about the safety of their fleet operating in coastal areas, and a Moskva-like outcome was something which was essentially predicted by them. Ukraine (with US support most likely) essentially pulled off this sort of operation in the exact sort of environment it was expected. The biggest distinction is the Ukranians have a very limited number of weapons in play to use on operations like this. At the very least the US needs to assume that in limited scale regional wars like this, the presumption of ideal warfighting conditions won't exist and you might be dealing with someone overtly receiving a lot of state backing - i.e. the US can't reasonably sanction China. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

ericmay 4y ago
> about the safety of their fleet operating in coastal areas > i.e. the US can't reasonably sanction China. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you're linking these ideas together. From a military standpoint, at least today, the US can use its blue water navy to patrol and shut down shipments of resources going in to China pretty well. You don't need to get near the Chinese coast to do that. The US also has no interest in any sort of land warfare in China, so ultimately the strategy is containment. That's why the US (and Biden announced this again today) would absolutely go to war with China over Taiwan, because for China to take Taiwan is to break out of this containment zone and basically eliminate most of the effectiveness of the US Navy in the Pacific as it would relate to China, and undoubtedly end the US as global hegemon. I think people assume that the US Navy has to be close to China in order to do damage and therefore naval ships are screwed because China will launch missles. While I do think the US Navy would conduct operations and quickly learn what exact capabilities the Chinese have, I don't think their effectiveness is limited to near-shore operations. Frankly, the US can shut down all maritime trade for China and now all of a sudden the Chinese are trying to ship in food and goods and energy products (oil and coal) via road, which I don't think is currently feasible. But I also don't think China is foolish enough to actually try and invade Taiwan, because that would be like Ukraine, except with the US actively fighting. Some suggest China may try and launch a limited nuclear strike on a location like Guam, but I think that's very dangerous because the US would no doubt retaliate on mainland Chinese military assets and it either ends right then and there with both sides calling a truce (and China not invading Taiwan) or it would continue to escalate into a limited nuclear exchange, which would be catastrophic. China doesn't and won't have the military strength to take over Taiwan unless it's willing to take insane losses, like Russia is now (but worse) in Ukraine. * I also have a pet conspiracy theory that the war in Iraq was launched to warm up the US military and give it practice with combined arms tactics against an enemy that can fight back, but not too hard.
- paganel 4y ago
  > (oil and coal) via road, which I don't think is currently feasible They'll be able to ship oil via rail and pipes from Western Siberia and the Russian Far East pretty soon, which, granted, is not as cheap as sea transport but is good enough. I think they have enough coal available inside China's borders. I still cannot understand what the US strategists think when they're throwing the Russians (and their huge mineral resources) directly into China's hands. On this Kissinger is of course right, i.e. he mentioned recently that back in the day the US was careful not to diplomatically "fight" against both China and the USSR/Russia at the same time, for good reason.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    > I still cannot understand what the US strategists think when they're throwing the Russians US and NATO and the West gave Russia all the opportunity it needed to integrate and they refused. Also the resources don’t matter much. Ok so China buys them cheaply from Russia, and then the US buys them cheaply from other producers, and China keeps making products. What’s the issue?
    - paganel 4y ago
      Russia does not want to "integrate" (i.e. adopt Western "values" for the benefit of those Western countries), Putin has said that out in the open back in Munich, in 2007, I thought this global hegemonic thing that the US has had been left out somewhere in Iraq or/and Afghanistan. > and then the US buys them cheaply from other producers, and China keeps making products. What’s the issue? Afaik the US doesn't produce as much, it's China that does. In case of a future proxy war between China and the US cutting access to mineral resources might have been one of the main tactics adopted by the US. It's easier to do that when China brings in its resources via marine transport (it's a well established fact that the US dominates the planetary oceans), way harder to do that if said transport of resources is carried out "inside" a huge landmass like Eurasia.
      - ericmay 4y ago
chipsa 4y ago
MC2002 isn't a good data point for the vulnerability of the USN fleet, because the war game definition basically just plopped the fleet into being next to the coast, with no actual prep work being done. Followed by the Red team commander cheating (using missiles on boats that would be awash over the gunwales if they tried to carry that much weight, motorcycle couriers that did not actually have time delay for their reports, etc.), which was possible because the Red team didn't actually have physical presence for this.

by XorNot 4y ago

ericmay 4y ago

> about the safety of their fleet operating in coastal areas > i.e. the US can't reasonably sanction China. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you're linking these ideas together. From a military standpoint, at least today, the US can use its blue water navy to patrol and shut down shipments of resources going in to China pretty well. You don't need to get near the Chinese coast to do that. The US also has no interest in any sort of land warfare in China, so ultimately the strategy is containment. That's why the US (and Biden announced this again today) would absolutely go to war with China over Taiwan, because for China to take Taiwan is to break out of this containment zone and basically eliminate most of the effectiveness of the US Navy in the Pacific as it would relate to China, and undoubtedly end the US as global hegemon. I think people assume that the US Navy has to be close to China in order to do damage and therefore naval ships are screwed because China will launch missles. While I do think the US Navy would conduct operations and quickly learn what exact capabilities the Chinese have, I don't think their effectiveness is limited to near-shore operations. Frankly, the US can shut down all maritime trade for China and now all of a sudden the Chinese are trying to ship in food and goods and energy products (oil and coal) via road, which I don't think is currently feasible. But I also don't think China is foolish enough to actually try and invade Taiwan, because that would be like Ukraine, except with the US actively fighting. Some suggest China may try and launch a limited nuclear strike on a location like Guam, but I think that's very dangerous because the US would no doubt retaliate on mainland Chinese military assets and it either ends right then and there with both sides calling a truce (and China not invading Taiwan) or it would continue to escalate into a limited nuclear exchange, which would be catastrophic. China doesn't and won't have the military strength to take over Taiwan unless it's willing to take insane losses, like Russia is now (but worse) in Ukraine. * I also have a pet conspiracy theory that the war in Iraq was launched to warm up the US military and give it practice with combined arms tactics against an enemy that can fight back, but not too hard.

paganel 4y ago
> (oil and coal) via road, which I don't think is currently feasible They'll be able to ship oil via rail and pipes from Western Siberia and the Russian Far East pretty soon, which, granted, is not as cheap as sea transport but is good enough. I think they have enough coal available inside China's borders. I still cannot understand what the US strategists think when they're throwing the Russians (and their huge mineral resources) directly into China's hands. On this Kissinger is of course right, i.e. he mentioned recently that back in the day the US was careful not to diplomatically "fight" against both China and the USSR/Russia at the same time, for good reason.
- ericmay 4y ago
  > I still cannot understand what the US strategists think when they're throwing the Russians US and NATO and the West gave Russia all the opportunity it needed to integrate and they refused. Also the resources don’t matter much. Ok so China buys them cheaply from Russia, and then the US buys them cheaply from other producers, and China keeps making products. What’s the issue?
  - paganel 4y ago
    Russia does not want to "integrate" (i.e. adopt Western "values" for the benefit of those Western countries), Putin has said that out in the open back in Munich, in 2007, I thought this global hegemonic thing that the US has had been left out somewhere in Iraq or/and Afghanistan. > and then the US buys them cheaply from other producers, and China keeps making products. What’s the issue? Afaik the US doesn't produce as much, it's China that does. In case of a future proxy war between China and the US cutting access to mineral resources might have been one of the main tactics adopted by the US. It's easier to do that when China brings in its resources via marine transport (it's a well established fact that the US dominates the planetary oceans), way harder to do that if said transport of resources is carried out "inside" a huge landmass like Eurasia.
    - ericmay 4y ago

chipsa 4y ago

MC2002 isn't a good data point for the vulnerability of the USN fleet, because the war game definition basically just plopped the fleet into being next to the coast, with no actual prep work being done. Followed by the Red team commander cheating (using missiles on boats that would be awash over the gunwales if they tried to carry that much weight, motorcycle couriers that did not actually have time delay for their reports, etc.), which was possible because the Red team didn't actually have physical presence for this.