11 ms·

The Prospects for War with China

27 points by mercutio2 4y ago

waynecochran 4y ago
I call it “West Taiwan,” not “China.”
- bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
  I used to find this joke amusing but not anymore. Not even the most hardcore Taiwanese independence advocate calls China "West Taiwan" because nobody in Taiwan wants to invade China (Except for some of the older generation and they call China "The Republic of China"). The idea of "West Taiwan" is so preposterous but I know it came as a natural byproduct of the "TAIWAN #1" meme, just to piss of Chinese people that were taught to look down on Taiwan. I can assure you that there were Taiwanese people getting in on that original joke. It just seems like the only people that refer to "China," as "West Taiwan" are essentially rooting to watch a war from across the ocean and clearly have zero skin in the game. Source: I'm a mod of /r/taiwanindependence - you're welcome to join us there :).
  - waynecochran 4y ago
    - bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
      Genuinely curious what your intention is with this response.
      - waynecochran 4y ago
        I love the Spartan response to his invaders with overwhelming numbers. Taiwan is no match for the PRC army but they are a sovereign country and should stand up to the bully.
        the_only_law 4y ago
        And what does that have to do with anything GP said?
      - waynecochran 4y ago
        Poking around over at /r/taiwanindependence/ .. do you think Taiwan should unify with China?
hackandthink 4y ago
This guy is smart. Many people profit from cold (and hot) war. "Whether you like it or not, America and Europe have a strategic interest in fueling the Ukraine conflict for reputation-building purposes (in addition to any ideological motives). Frankly, this is why I think the US ought to escalate support for Ukraine."
- rainworld 4y ago
  Politicians: “No, of course we don’t want war with X” The think tankers they fund: “Kill them all”
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
    > Politicians: “No, of course we don’t want war with Xi” The think tankers they fund: “Kill them all” One letter. No difference!
adrian_b 4y ago
Until very recently, I did not believe that there is any chance that China will attempt to invade Taiwan in the near future. Nevertheless, after USA has not remained content to try to cripple the Chinese semiconductor manufacturing industry, but now it pressures Taiwan to stop manufacturing integrated circuits for China, I have become worried for the first time that a Chinese invasion is no longer impossible. If Taiwan does not manufacture Chinese ICs any more, then Taiwan is no longer valuable for China and they do not have any reason to care whether the Taiwanese industry is destroyed, because such a destruction will not change anything for them. This removes one of the most important costs of an invasion decision.
- baybal2 4y ago
- UltraViolence 4y ago
  China will invade Taiwan regardless because their "Great Leader" has made it the center of his foreign policy. Now that there's no more opposition to his rule we can only wait for the ax to fall. I've already come to the conclusion China has won this fight, because the economic cost will be too great for the West to bare. My advice to the Biden Administration would be to deprecate the relations with Taiwan to lower expectations of an intervention.
  - hakfoo 4y ago
    I wish we could just de-escalate the situation with China. Dial back some of the economic squabbling as well as the military posturing. The West and China need each other economically, and both Biden and Xi are smart enough-- and old enough to remember nuclear terror-- to not want WWIII. I feel like most of the escalation is coming from the West though. They're the ones tossing around sanctions and national-security noise on speculation-- China might invade Taiwan. Are they willing to upset the order that's maintained stability for decades, and likely derail their economic miracle, over a symbolic chunk of rock? We can't ignore the "economic miracle" angle when comparing with, say, Russia/Ukraine-- Russia can justify an invasion by tossing around a "we've been abused and mocked since 1991, what do we have to lose" narrative, while China's star has been continually rising, so there's no need to recover lost prestige. Ironically, more sanctions and reduced detente could actually encourage an invasion, by reducing the economic ties and stoking fresh hostility, getting closer to the "what do we have to lose" moment. I feel like the problem is much more on a philosophical level. We're still remixing the Cold War. The current Western/Private Enterprise ecosystem needs to be able to say "THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. NOTHING ELSE WILL EVER WORK. IT'S HUMAN NATURE." If we start successfully exploring alternatives, there's a risk of dislodging entrenched wealth. So if a state-capitalist or outright socialist state becomes competitive, the West instinctively responds with full (metaphoric) guns blazing to hobble it. The last thing the current ruling classes want is for people to start saying "Things are actually better off in China" and start asking "so how are they achieving that? Did it involve putting Jack Ma on a tighter leash than we give Elon Musk?" I personally want to see China succeed. Domestically, they're too big to fail. It's not like we have a way to peacefully and seamlessly transition a country of 1.4 billion people to some shiny new alternative. (Airdropping a fait-accompli democracy is a proven-terrible strategy). On an international-affairs level, we need a more multi-polar world-- we've seen (Iraq, Afghanistan) what happens when we have a single superpower with no real checks to its impunity. On a philosophical level, we shouldn't be packing all the eggs in the Western-Style Free Market/Democracy basket, because we're approaching, if not in a major transition point. We know these systems work somewhat in an age of bounty (cheap fossil fuels, absorbing and consuming an entire new hemisphere in 500 years, slashing of communications costs and latency) but will they still function smoothly in a coming age of scarcity (resource exhaustion, climate change)?
xg15 4y ago
The article rests on the assumption that Taiwan really is the center of the conflict and the West only defends it out of the goodness of their hearts (or to defend some local economic/strategic advantages such as access to TSMC or an open South China Sea). Following that assumption, the conflict could be instantly defused if some compromise about Taiwan's status on the unification/independence scale could be reached (or where any option to change the status quo would be more costly for all sides than keeping it) I worry that the situation could really be the inverse - that Taiwan is just a flashpoint in a larger US/West vs China conflict which is already well on the way. Another consequence of China's explosive economic growth that the article didn't go into was that China is now becoming a US rival and is openly challenging the international system and the "liberal international order". They are increasingly setting up counter institutions, such as the Silk Road or the SCO and the West sees itself pressured to react to that. As such, I think Biden's "autocracy vs democracy" line was at least getting the scale of the conflict right.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  >scale of the conflict right Would not go that far, but I agree that more PRC narrows military gap with US, the more TW becomes a stretch goal to the greater strategic aim of eroding/pushing out US presence in Asia and more broadly US primacy in general. At end of the day cross strait drama is one sustained by US power post WW2, which sufficiently deterred or destroyed would open up many options for reuninfication. Ultimately the prospect for war is real, but timing is differs. On paper, US wants war sooner (before 2030) to take out pacing competitor as force balance is shifting towards PRC favour every year while PRC's nuclear deterrence still not sufficient. It explains much of recent US behaviours, which is not to say admin is actively engineering war, but actors are not actively constraining policies that could lead to one. For PRC even taking TW doesn't dramatically improve PRC geostrategic posture - Yonaguni is basically where TW is and can be militarized with US hardware, as well as other regional fence sitters that want to hedge against PRC containment but only after TW damocles is off the table. But not if PRC substantially dismantles US military presence in Asia and make examples of US partners that participate in broader campaign which will also include destorying military infra in the region (i.e. Pinegap). The worst thing US can do is try to defend (non security guarantee) TW and fail, the next worst is succeeds pyrrhicly but lose so much hardware that honoring other defense commitments becomes impossible to hide. For PRC, this is like a 2030+ effort. Which is not to say PRC would not prefer a relatively isolated TW campaign with minimal US intervention, but they're war planning assumes US intervention and if that comes to pass, IMO PRC won't be content with just stopping immediate US intervention goals, but their abliity to intervene in Asia going forward.
UltraViolence 4y ago
Your analysis is flawed. The U.S. will not risk a nuclear war over an island it doesn't even recognize as an independent state and has no security treaties with. What Biden says about intervening is just bluff. And China knows this. And then there's the prospect of the Taiwanese not even WANTING to fight their own brethren. Sure, they want to remain independent if they can, but if China decides to invade their armed forces will simply throw away their arms and go home. Do we want our soldiers to lose their lives for a people that hasn't even demonstrated their will to fight for their independence? Fuck that! China is attempting to put its tentacles everywhere, making it extremely costly for Western nations to completely decouple from China economically. For example: Apple is so deep in bed with China that if an invasion were to occur the company would simply go bankrupt. Bankrupt! We're talking about a company with a market valuation of almost $2 trillion!! It would be very hard for the Biden Administration to make that choice. And that's just one U.S. company. There are probably dozens like them in the same boat. From what I gather Volkswagen would face an existential threat if it were banned from selling its cars in China. No way, the Germans would allow that, no matter what the U.S. says. No, there will not be a nuclear war over Taiwan. Merely a few pinpricks in terms of sanctions.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  > What Biden says about intervening is just bluff. And China knows this. … > And then there's the prospect of the Taiwanese not even WANTING to fight their own brethren. You make a lot of confident assumptions here which you cannot know for sure.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    On the flip side for the second point, it can just as easily go into the reverse. It’s all very well for the mainland government to declare the island to be a rogue province in revolt, but that just means a war between the two would entail bloodshed between countrymen. That might give at least some Chinese pause, not unlike the contemporary antiwar protests in Russia. Not to mention given that China has been at peace for decades now, to disrupt their economic growth and prosperous gains in standards of living to go to war would be a hard sell to the average Chinese citizen, regardless of how much control the government might exert over drumming up support for war. One could speculate that they would at least make it seem like a defensive conflict.
thoughtstheseus 4y ago
I expect a permanent blockade of Taiwan to prevent inbound sensors and shooters and outbound advanced tech within one year. Today Taiwan and U.S. military are not integrated the way the U.S. is with other Allies and partners: Korea, Japan, NATO, etc. Ukraine is case and point how valuable that integration can be. The PRC will be adamant that Taiwan not receive AI (battlefield mgmt. software, communications, sensors) aid similar to Ukraine.
- stale2002 4y ago
  I don't think so. China would have to fire on US military ships to enforce any such blockage. They aren't going to start a war with the US.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    At minimum, they'll start doing dangerous intercepts with blockade runners, which PLAN already does with USN in SCS. Around TW, it will be 1,000s of militia ships to make the navigation exceptionally dangerous. They're going to dare US to start war with PRC. There's also simply mining and cratering TW waters + runways to make substantial resupply impossible. US has no solution to a motivated PRC blockade of TW.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Would the PRC also enforce a no-fly zone?
      - dirtyid 4y ago
        I think likely, but depends on how things escalate, if shooting war commercial aviation will stop anyways. There might be grayzone shenanigans like chaffing ELINT planes trying to support TW. Basically all the perks UKR has access to, PRC will attempt deny to TW. Ideally for PRC before it goes hot, PRC will try to assert control over TW civil aviation, prevent flights from landing or redirect flights to PRC first to process. No person/thing is going in and out TW without PRC supervision, including foreign or TW nationals PRC wants to hold for leverage. IMO above is significant but not discussed topic, there are 750k and growing foreign nationals on TW that PRC has leverage over if things turn ugly. 750k "illegally" working on TW without PRC consent, some directly with the ROC government to undermine PRC interests (technically spies). PRC making air space too dangerous = only viable exfiltration is evacuation across maritime routes, one determined by PRC via changing what is / is not accessible with mines. There's going to be international pressure to setup evacuation routes which gives PRC an "in" onto the island, We're talking about thousands of ships moving 750k bodies... the way to TW filled with PLA, the way back filled with civilians, the entire strait satuated with civilian activity that makes targetting an embedded invasion fleet and other outside interventions difficult, i.e. is JP going to restrict US access to basing if means 20k JP nationals get last pick on evacuation priority.
Apocryphon 4y ago
Curious what anyone thinks of this tactical assessment: > tlear 19 days ago | parent | context | un‑favorite | on: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown > [China can't retake Taiwan], not even remotely close any time in the next 20 years at least. Can you imagine what a landing beach would look like being pounded by drone spotted artillery? See war in Ukraine. Forget the approach, anti ship missiles, mines, sheer volume of logistics needed. Stepping on the landing beach is a suicide without absolutely astronomical advantage in air power and ability to suffer huge attrition, even then.. 155mm hidden under camo/thermal nets, DJI drone rigged with magazines of small bombs.. Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson Childs play, this would make Diep and Galipoli look like walk in the park. > I would go as far as to say that US Army + Marines + Navy could not land on Taiwan without suffering multiple brigades of attrition AFTER at least a year long blockade and air campaign. It is that hard. > PRC has to surpass US in GDP, then spend 10-20 years of US level military spending, then maybe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33248946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33248946
- thoughtstheseus 4y ago
  D-Day like beach invasions are unlikely. Blockades and targeted strikes on infrastructure are likely. How long can Taiwan reasonably last without energy and food imports? They U.S. spends most of its military resources on force projection. Not homeland defense so military spending comparisons are not simple IMO. China has been acutely focused on Taiwan and its military resources reflect that.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Drones as an anti-blockade counter? https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2022/10/29/videos-reveal-drone-kamikaze-boat-assault-on-russias-black-sea-fleet/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2022/10/29/vide... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-unleashes-mass-kamikaze-drone-boat-attack-on-russias-black-sea-fleet-headquarters https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-unleashes-mass...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

27 points by mercutio2 4y ago

waynecochran 4y ago

I call it “West Taiwan,” not “China.”

bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
I used to find this joke amusing but not anymore. Not even the most hardcore Taiwanese independence advocate calls China "West Taiwan" because nobody in Taiwan wants to invade China (Except for some of the older generation and they call China "The Republic of China"). The idea of "West Taiwan" is so preposterous but I know it came as a natural byproduct of the "TAIWAN #1" meme, just to piss of Chinese people that were taught to look down on Taiwan. I can assure you that there were Taiwanese people getting in on that original joke. It just seems like the only people that refer to "China," as "West Taiwan" are essentially rooting to watch a war from across the ocean and clearly have zero skin in the game. Source: I'm a mod of /r/taiwanindependence - you're welcome to join us there :).
- waynecochran 4y ago
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
    Genuinely curious what your intention is with this response.
    - waynecochran 4y ago
      I love the Spartan response to his invaders with overwhelming numbers. Taiwan is no match for the PRC army but they are a sovereign country and should stand up to the bully.
      - the_only_law 4y ago
        And what does that have to do with anything GP said?
    - waynecochran 4y ago
      Poking around over at /r/taiwanindependence/ .. do you think Taiwan should unify with China?

hackandthink 4y ago

This guy is smart. Many people profit from cold (and hot) war. "Whether you like it or not, America and Europe have a strategic interest in fueling the Ukraine conflict for reputation-building purposes (in addition to any ideological motives). Frankly, this is why I think the US ought to escalate support for Ukraine."

rainworld 4y ago
Politicians: “No, of course we don’t want war with X” The think tankers they fund: “Kill them all”
- bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
  > Politicians: “No, of course we don’t want war with Xi” The think tankers they fund: “Kill them all” One letter. No difference!

adrian_b 4y ago

Until very recently, I did not believe that there is any chance that China will attempt to invade Taiwan in the near future. Nevertheless, after USA has not remained content to try to cripple the Chinese semiconductor manufacturing industry, but now it pressures Taiwan to stop manufacturing integrated circuits for China, I have become worried for the first time that a Chinese invasion is no longer impossible. If Taiwan does not manufacture Chinese ICs any more, then Taiwan is no longer valuable for China and they do not have any reason to care whether the Taiwanese industry is destroyed, because such a destruction will not change anything for them. This removes one of the most important costs of an invasion decision.

baybal2 4y ago
UltraViolence 4y ago
China will invade Taiwan regardless because their "Great Leader" has made it the center of his foreign policy. Now that there's no more opposition to his rule we can only wait for the ax to fall. I've already come to the conclusion China has won this fight, because the economic cost will be too great for the West to bare. My advice to the Biden Administration would be to deprecate the relations with Taiwan to lower expectations of an intervention.
- hakfoo 4y ago
  I wish we could just de-escalate the situation with China. Dial back some of the economic squabbling as well as the military posturing. The West and China need each other economically, and both Biden and Xi are smart enough-- and old enough to remember nuclear terror-- to not want WWIII. I feel like most of the escalation is coming from the West though. They're the ones tossing around sanctions and national-security noise on speculation-- China might invade Taiwan. Are they willing to upset the order that's maintained stability for decades, and likely derail their economic miracle, over a symbolic chunk of rock? We can't ignore the "economic miracle" angle when comparing with, say, Russia/Ukraine-- Russia can justify an invasion by tossing around a "we've been abused and mocked since 1991, what do we have to lose" narrative, while China's star has been continually rising, so there's no need to recover lost prestige. Ironically, more sanctions and reduced detente could actually encourage an invasion, by reducing the economic ties and stoking fresh hostility, getting closer to the "what do we have to lose" moment. I feel like the problem is much more on a philosophical level. We're still remixing the Cold War. The current Western/Private Enterprise ecosystem needs to be able to say "THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. NOTHING ELSE WILL EVER WORK. IT'S HUMAN NATURE." If we start successfully exploring alternatives, there's a risk of dislodging entrenched wealth. So if a state-capitalist or outright socialist state becomes competitive, the West instinctively responds with full (metaphoric) guns blazing to hobble it. The last thing the current ruling classes want is for people to start saying "Things are actually better off in China" and start asking "so how are they achieving that? Did it involve putting Jack Ma on a tighter leash than we give Elon Musk?" I personally want to see China succeed. Domestically, they're too big to fail. It's not like we have a way to peacefully and seamlessly transition a country of 1.4 billion people to some shiny new alternative. (Airdropping a fait-accompli democracy is a proven-terrible strategy). On an international-affairs level, we need a more multi-polar world-- we've seen (Iraq, Afghanistan) what happens when we have a single superpower with no real checks to its impunity. On a philosophical level, we shouldn't be packing all the eggs in the Western-Style Free Market/Democracy basket, because we're approaching, if not in a major transition point. We know these systems work somewhat in an age of bounty (cheap fossil fuels, absorbing and consuming an entire new hemisphere in 500 years, slashing of communications costs and latency) but will they still function smoothly in a coming age of scarcity (resource exhaustion, climate change)?

xg15 4y ago

The article rests on the assumption that Taiwan really is the center of the conflict and the West only defends it out of the goodness of their hearts (or to defend some local economic/strategic advantages such as access to TSMC or an open South China Sea). Following that assumption, the conflict could be instantly defused if some compromise about Taiwan's status on the unification/independence scale could be reached (or where any option to change the status quo would be more costly for all sides than keeping it) I worry that the situation could really be the inverse - that Taiwan is just a flashpoint in a larger US/West vs China conflict which is already well on the way. Another consequence of China's explosive economic growth that the article didn't go into was that China is now becoming a US rival and is openly challenging the international system and the "liberal international order". They are increasingly setting up counter institutions, such as the Silk Road or the SCO and the West sees itself pressured to react to that. As such, I think Biden's "autocracy vs democracy" line was at least getting the scale of the conflict right.

dirtyid 4y ago
>scale of the conflict right Would not go that far, but I agree that more PRC narrows military gap with US, the more TW becomes a stretch goal to the greater strategic aim of eroding/pushing out US presence in Asia and more broadly US primacy in general. At end of the day cross strait drama is one sustained by US power post WW2, which sufficiently deterred or destroyed would open up many options for reuninfication. Ultimately the prospect for war is real, but timing is differs. On paper, US wants war sooner (before 2030) to take out pacing competitor as force balance is shifting towards PRC favour every year while PRC's nuclear deterrence still not sufficient. It explains much of recent US behaviours, which is not to say admin is actively engineering war, but actors are not actively constraining policies that could lead to one. For PRC even taking TW doesn't dramatically improve PRC geostrategic posture - Yonaguni is basically where TW is and can be militarized with US hardware, as well as other regional fence sitters that want to hedge against PRC containment but only after TW damocles is off the table. But not if PRC substantially dismantles US military presence in Asia and make examples of US partners that participate in broader campaign which will also include destorying military infra in the region (i.e. Pinegap). The worst thing US can do is try to defend (non security guarantee) TW and fail, the next worst is succeeds pyrrhicly but lose so much hardware that honoring other defense commitments becomes impossible to hide. For PRC, this is like a 2030+ effort. Which is not to say PRC would not prefer a relatively isolated TW campaign with minimal US intervention, but they're war planning assumes US intervention and if that comes to pass, IMO PRC won't be content with just stopping immediate US intervention goals, but their abliity to intervene in Asia going forward.

UltraViolence 4y ago

Your analysis is flawed. The U.S. will not risk a nuclear war over an island it doesn't even recognize as an independent state and has no security treaties with. What Biden says about intervening is just bluff. And China knows this. And then there's the prospect of the Taiwanese not even WANTING to fight their own brethren. Sure, they want to remain independent if they can, but if China decides to invade their armed forces will simply throw away their arms and go home. Do we want our soldiers to lose their lives for a people that hasn't even demonstrated their will to fight for their independence? Fuck that! China is attempting to put its tentacles everywhere, making it extremely costly for Western nations to completely decouple from China economically. For example: Apple is so deep in bed with China that if an invasion were to occur the company would simply go bankrupt. Bankrupt! We're talking about a company with a market valuation of almost $2 trillion!! It would be very hard for the Biden Administration to make that choice. And that's just one U.S. company. There are probably dozens like them in the same boat. From what I gather Volkswagen would face an existential threat if it were banned from selling its cars in China. No way, the Germans would allow that, no matter what the U.S. says. No, there will not be a nuclear war over Taiwan. Merely a few pinpricks in terms of sanctions.

CogitoCogito 4y ago
> What Biden says about intervening is just bluff. And China knows this. … > And then there's the prospect of the Taiwanese not even WANTING to fight their own brethren. You make a lot of confident assumptions here which you cannot know for sure.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  On the flip side for the second point, it can just as easily go into the reverse. It’s all very well for the mainland government to declare the island to be a rogue province in revolt, but that just means a war between the two would entail bloodshed between countrymen. That might give at least some Chinese pause, not unlike the contemporary antiwar protests in Russia. Not to mention given that China has been at peace for decades now, to disrupt their economic growth and prosperous gains in standards of living to go to war would be a hard sell to the average Chinese citizen, regardless of how much control the government might exert over drumming up support for war. One could speculate that they would at least make it seem like a defensive conflict.

thoughtstheseus 4y ago

I expect a permanent blockade of Taiwan to prevent inbound sensors and shooters and outbound advanced tech within one year. Today Taiwan and U.S. military are not integrated the way the U.S. is with other Allies and partners: Korea, Japan, NATO, etc. Ukraine is case and point how valuable that integration can be. The PRC will be adamant that Taiwan not receive AI (battlefield mgmt. software, communications, sensors) aid similar to Ukraine.

stale2002 4y ago
I don't think so. China would have to fire on US military ships to enforce any such blockage. They aren't going to start a war with the US.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  At minimum, they'll start doing dangerous intercepts with blockade runners, which PLAN already does with USN in SCS. Around TW, it will be 1,000s of militia ships to make the navigation exceptionally dangerous. They're going to dare US to start war with PRC. There's also simply mining and cratering TW waters + runways to make substantial resupply impossible. US has no solution to a motivated PRC blockade of TW.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Would the PRC also enforce a no-fly zone?
    - dirtyid 4y ago
      I think likely, but depends on how things escalate, if shooting war commercial aviation will stop anyways. There might be grayzone shenanigans like chaffing ELINT planes trying to support TW. Basically all the perks UKR has access to, PRC will attempt deny to TW. Ideally for PRC before it goes hot, PRC will try to assert control over TW civil aviation, prevent flights from landing or redirect flights to PRC first to process. No person/thing is going in and out TW without PRC supervision, including foreign or TW nationals PRC wants to hold for leverage. IMO above is significant but not discussed topic, there are 750k and growing foreign nationals on TW that PRC has leverage over if things turn ugly. 750k "illegally" working on TW without PRC consent, some directly with the ROC government to undermine PRC interests (technically spies). PRC making air space too dangerous = only viable exfiltration is evacuation across maritime routes, one determined by PRC via changing what is / is not accessible with mines. There's going to be international pressure to setup evacuation routes which gives PRC an "in" onto the island, We're talking about thousands of ships moving 750k bodies... the way to TW filled with PLA, the way back filled with civilians, the entire strait satuated with civilian activity that makes targetting an embedded invasion fleet and other outside interventions difficult, i.e. is JP going to restrict US access to basing if means 20k JP nationals get last pick on evacuation priority.

Apocryphon 4y ago

Curious what anyone thinks of this tactical assessment: > tlear 19 days ago | parent | context | un‑favorite | on: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown > [China can't retake Taiwan], not even remotely close any time in the next 20 years at least. Can you imagine what a landing beach would look like being pounded by drone spotted artillery? See war in Ukraine. Forget the approach, anti ship missiles, mines, sheer volume of logistics needed. Stepping on the landing beach is a suicide without absolutely astronomical advantage in air power and ability to suffer huge attrition, even then.. 155mm hidden under camo/thermal nets, DJI drone rigged with magazines of small bombs.. Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson Childs play, this would make Diep and Galipoli look like walk in the park. > I would go as far as to say that US Army + Marines + Navy could not land on Taiwan without suffering multiple brigades of attrition AFTER at least a year long blockade and air campaign. It is that hard. > PRC has to surpass US in GDP, then spend 10-20 years of US level military spending, then maybe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33248946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33248946

thoughtstheseus 4y ago
D-Day like beach invasions are unlikely. Blockades and targeted strikes on infrastructure are likely. How long can Taiwan reasonably last without energy and food imports? They U.S. spends most of its military resources on force projection. Not homeland defense so military spending comparisons are not simple IMO. China has been acutely focused on Taiwan and its military resources reflect that.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Drones as an anti-blockade counter? https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2022/10/29/videos-reveal-drone-kamikaze-boat-assault-on-russias-black-sea-fleet/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2022/10/29/vide... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-unleashes-mass-kamikaze-drone-boat-attack-on-russias-black-sea-fleet-headquarters https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-unleashes-mass...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]