3 ms·

China doesn't have to destroy US airplanes, only port and aircraft infrastructure in Taiwan. They would not have to risk direct conflict with the US.

lumost 4y ago
Directly attacking food shipments/landings would invite more sanctions and increase the likelihood of more weapons being delivered to defend said infrastructure. Past studies have shown that even nukes have trouble knocking out rail and port infrastructure. It’s highly unlikely that china would be capable of achieving and holding full air supremacy in Taiwan. Particularly if SAM systems are readily replaced. The two thousand cruise missiles launched by Russia into Ukraine have failed to degrade infrastructure. Even with 20k+ cruise missiles - makeshift ports were constructed in days during ww2.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  There are 22 airports in Taiwan and only 4 with the infrastructure to handle cargo flights. China has over 100,000 rockets and missiles estimated to be in their inventory, and the best manufacturing system in the world to produce more. A 747 cannot land on a ripped up and shredded runway, and it cannot offload goods into burning warehouses. Not to mention the ridiculous idea of trying to feed, clothe, and care for 25 million people living on the island of Taiwan with aircraft. It cannot be compared to the berlin airlift which supplied a fraction of the people with a fraction of the goods, and whose flights lasted less than an hour. Flights to Taiwan would likely come from Tokyo, which is an 8 hour round trip. And they would probably need complex refueling operations on at least one of the legs, because Taiwan would run out of jet fuel immediately. The US doesn't have enough of a tanker fleet to support something like this, or enough cargo aircraft fitted with refueling probes. As for ports, China does need to level them, they just need to place some of their 200,000+ sea mines in the approaches to Taiwan. They can do this with subs, aircraft, high speed watercraft and even with rocket launchers. Luckily for China, the major Taiwanese ports are on the coast which faces the strait rather than the open pacific, simplifying matters.
  - lumost 4y ago
    Build more ports on the pacific? The Berlin airlift was conducted in 1948 - technology and shipping capacity has improved dramatically since. While china may have many mines - it is not unreasonable that an open seas mission could bring up to 5 carrier strike groups to the pacific coast of Taiwan. Enough to deter mine laying operations as well as conduct mine clearing operations. Based on the game theory outlined above, the optimal strategy would be for Taiwan Allie’s to deploy enough military power that a Chinese strike on naval assets would immediately translate to full scale war. 5 carrier strike groups is also sufficient to block sea trade into china from further out than land based missiles can reach. This was also part of the nato strategy with Ukraine. There is enough military on standby in Eastern Europe to dissuade any attack against nato territory. China needs a fast war that doesn’t escalate to win. Taiwan needs only not to lose. I don’t think china can simultaneously target food and American aircraft carriers without triggering a full war.

lumost 4y ago

Directly attacking food shipments/landings would invite more sanctions and increase the likelihood of more weapons being delivered to defend said infrastructure. Past studies have shown that even nukes have trouble knocking out rail and port infrastructure. It’s highly unlikely that china would be capable of achieving and holding full air supremacy in Taiwan. Particularly if SAM systems are readily replaced. The two thousand cruise missiles launched by Russia into Ukraine have failed to degrade infrastructure. Even with 20k+ cruise missiles - makeshift ports were constructed in days during ww2.

missedthecue 4y ago
There are 22 airports in Taiwan and only 4 with the infrastructure to handle cargo flights. China has over 100,000 rockets and missiles estimated to be in their inventory, and the best manufacturing system in the world to produce more. A 747 cannot land on a ripped up and shredded runway, and it cannot offload goods into burning warehouses. Not to mention the ridiculous idea of trying to feed, clothe, and care for 25 million people living on the island of Taiwan with aircraft. It cannot be compared to the berlin airlift which supplied a fraction of the people with a fraction of the goods, and whose flights lasted less than an hour. Flights to Taiwan would likely come from Tokyo, which is an 8 hour round trip. And they would probably need complex refueling operations on at least one of the legs, because Taiwan would run out of jet fuel immediately. The US doesn't have enough of a tanker fleet to support something like this, or enough cargo aircraft fitted with refueling probes. As for ports, China does need to level them, they just need to place some of their 200,000+ sea mines in the approaches to Taiwan. They can do this with subs, aircraft, high speed watercraft and even with rocket launchers. Luckily for China, the major Taiwanese ports are on the coast which faces the strait rather than the open pacific, simplifying matters.
- lumost 4y ago
  Build more ports on the pacific? The Berlin airlift was conducted in 1948 - technology and shipping capacity has improved dramatically since. While china may have many mines - it is not unreasonable that an open seas mission could bring up to 5 carrier strike groups to the pacific coast of Taiwan. Enough to deter mine laying operations as well as conduct mine clearing operations. Based on the game theory outlined above, the optimal strategy would be for Taiwan Allie’s to deploy enough military power that a Chinese strike on naval assets would immediately translate to full scale war. 5 carrier strike groups is also sufficient to block sea trade into china from further out than land based missiles can reach. This was also part of the nato strategy with Ukraine. There is enough military on standby in Eastern Europe to dissuade any attack against nato territory. China needs a fast war that doesn’t escalate to win. Taiwan needs only not to lose. I don’t think china can simultaneously target food and American aircraft carriers without triggering a full war.