6 ms·

Same as for : > My solace is that in a real conflict, all of that red tape would be put to the side and people can get about building things. That's just not

Same as for : > My solace is that in a real conflict, all of that red tape would be put to the side and people can get about building things. That's just not going to happen. A real conflict would involve nukes, and the war would be quickly over. I doubt that something close to Vietnam can happen again either. (And even for a 2nd Vietnam, I doubt that any significant artillery would be used when, as you point out, missiles are an option.)

MilStdJunkie 3y ago
I might be a hopeless optimist, but I don't think a USN/USAF/USMC vs PLAAF in SCS/Taiwan situation would escalate to nukes. At least, I don't think it's likely. Definitely a nonzero chance, maybe a coin toss, but Taiwan isn't core territory for either Power. Invasion, now . . well, there's the magic power that comes with having 'em. No one invades you, ever. Also,outside factors could change the math here, like a megavolcano under the west antarctic ice sheet or something that raises ocean levels by meters. That redefines "back against the wall". If your country loses all access to fresh water, well, you might as well be under occupation or destroyed, so you might use your nukes aggressively. Just don't accidentally drop them in the water you're trying to get.
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  But that only means that the US would give up on Taiwan before the fight would get any serious (from USA's point of view). I also kind of doubt that China is going to try, at least in the next decade or so, because those so far irreplaceable chip factories are almost certainly booby trapped and are a critical piece of the global economy, so China would be sabotaging itself first. (And Xi has probably a long way to go for Putin-like mistakes.)
  - rasz 3y ago
    China is steadily funding Fab R&D. They already managed to get from zero to somewhat modern ram and NAND (YMTC). YMTC is bad https://goughlui.com/2023/10/10/psa-ssds-with-ymtc-flash-prone-to-failure-check-your-ssds/ https://goughlui.com/2023/10/10/psa-ssds-with-ymtc-flash-pro..., but _very_ cheap so eventually will improve and start taking over more and more volume. In couple of years China will get to the point erasing UMC/TSMC does give them advantage.
    - BlueTemplar 3y ago
      That's why I said in the next decade... you seem to be much more optimistic than me about them catching up.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    I don't know how to parse this comment. Why would the US give up on Taiwan "before it gets serious". If the US is involved in a shooting conflict in the Taiwanese strait, they either win or lose it conventionally but if it happens at all then nukes aren't getting involved unless mainland territorial invasions go on the table - and they're not going to. The reality is the US would very much like to avoid having to negotiate that situation: far easier to arm Taiwan to the teeth with AA and anti-shipping missiles, and let them take care of it. EDIT: It's also worth noting nukes aren't the only deterrent forces. It's one thing to "know" that the US Navy isn't going to get involved...it's quite another to conduct an invasion of an ally while well inside the missile engagement range of the US Navy on the assumption that's actually true.
    - pas 3y ago
      Are those missiles getting to Taiwan any time soon though? It seems current politics on the island is still uber polite oh we are China, no need for drastic measures, etc. or is that changing fast?
      - 14u2c 3y ago
        They been sending arn for 50 years now.
    - Log_out_ 3y ago
      The US is currently loosing to Russia in Europe, it's all talk no walk, similar to west - europe.
      - actionfromafar 3y ago
        The US is "loosing" because it barely dipped a toe in the conflict. Motivate the US to go all in and it's a different story altogether. But I agree on the reluctance of Western Europe and the US to give support, the Ukraine conflict could have been over by now with proper support.
        inglor_cz 3y ago
  - clarionbell 3y ago
    People thought the same about Putin, or junta in Argentina. Problem is that they couldn't understand their motivation. Some people, don't care about GDP, well being of their populace or popularity, not to mention media. They don't have to worry about reelections, or retirement. Just maintaining their power. And that gives them time to pursue things politicians from liberal democracies consider things of history.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Mainland China wants Taiwan back since WW2, chip fabs are a bonus, maybe that is. The big problem of a Chinese invasion so is: the Taiwan straight. They have to get the invasion force across, that meens a lot of big, slow, fat transport vessels. Those are easily sunk, meaning not enough boots on the ground. Which leaves pounding Taiwan with missiles.
    - Ygg2 3y ago
      Chinese don't have to invade Taiwan to conquer it. They can take Kinmen isle without breaking a sweat. No one is crazy enough to go to war over it, and that might put Taiwan into panic mode. Another is to isolate it politically and create a soft blockade around it.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        Soft blackade, that is pointless. And a hard one is basically an escalation to war (see: Cuban Missile Crisis). A country in, maybe, panic mode is not conquered. And if said island is strategically important enough, yes, people will go to war over it. And if it isn't, there is no real point beyond symbolism to take it in the first place.
  - dageshi 3y ago
    I don't really understand why people get so caught up on the fabs in Taiwan, as if their presence is the actual goal or the important thing. An invasion of Taiwan would probably effectively destroy globalisation, China exports would be sanctioned, China imports of energy and raw materials would be heavily disrupted (China's supply of fossil fuels is very vulnerable). It would be the most disruptive event to the world order since WW2. The chip fabs are a line item among thousands on that bill.
    - BlueTemplar 3y ago
      I guess that I am much more confident about globalization quickly finding alternative ways (consider how sanctions on Russia have trouble working, especially for oil).
      - KptMarchewa 3y ago
        People have a big tendency to overestimate how hard is to get over some temporary problema and it's long term importance, when those problems actually tend to commoditize over medium term. Now there are chips, before it was manufacturing and shipping, even before there was oil.
    - the-dude 3y ago
      The US only stopped trading with Nazi Germany after Germany declared war on the them, after Pearl Harbor in December 1941.
      - Sabinus 3y ago
        The US was engaged in a long period of isolationism during that period. The US attitude to world conflict now is vastly different to the views of 1941
lmm 3y ago
> I doubt that something close to Vietnam can happen again either. (And even for a 2nd Vietnam, I doubt that any significant artillery would be used when, as you point out, missiles are an option.) Artillery would be huge, missiles are great but they're expensive and you run out quickly. Afghanistan/Iraq were already being compared to Vietnam, and while you don't see it on the news so much, most of the kills in those conflicts were with artillery.
clarionbell 3y ago
People thought that war in Europe will be impossible. They were wrong. And now we are paying the price. Turns out large conventional war is very much a thing. Right now we have a big one in Europe, handful are brewing around the world. Artillery is still, and for many reasons will be, a king. Shells are order of magnitude cheaper than rockets. They are smaller. Easier to manufacture. Missiles are nice if you want to destroy specific targets. Things that move or are so far away that artillery can't reach them.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Europe didn't see war since WW2, regional, nasty conflicts in the Balkans and Eastern Europe not withstanding. Conventional, near-peer warfare, involving modern armies, wasn't a thing since Korea. Things change, organizations and people adapt. Not foreseeing these changes is not a failure. Believing that throwing predictions at the wall, and only picking the ones that stick in hindsight, is a viable strategy is just plane wrong so.
- euroderf 3y ago
  > People thought that war in Europe will be impossible. They were wrong. And now we are paying the price. Turns out large conventional war is very much a thing. Likely this was the biggest surprise to emerge. Even Georgia and Armenia did not foreshadow the scale and slogmatch reality of Ukraine eh. The need for stockpiles is real. > Artillery is still, and for many reasons will be, a king. Shells are order of magnitude cheaper than rockets. They are smaller. Easier to manufacture. This statement is incomplete without also referencing drones. See for example: https://roguesystemsrecon.substack.com/p/drone-war-evolution-in-ukraine https://roguesystemsrecon.substack.com/p/drone-war-evolution...
KineticLensman 3y ago
>> > My solace is that in a real conflict, all of that red tape would be put to the side and people can get about building things. > That's just not going to happen. Check out Urgent Operational Requirements [0] in Op HERRICK (UK name for ops in Afghanistan). These led to multiple entirely new platforms, systems and capabilities being developed and deployed in weeks and months, e.g. physical and electronic countermeasures for the rapidly evolving IED threat. The downside is increased logistics / supply-chain burden because you have additional ad-hoc support contracts and staff, in and out of theatre. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urgent_Operational_Requirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urgent_Operational_Requirement

MilStdJunkie 3y ago

I might be a hopeless optimist, but I don't think a USN/USAF/USMC vs PLAAF in SCS/Taiwan situation would escalate to nukes. At least, I don't think it's likely. Definitely a nonzero chance, maybe a coin toss, but Taiwan isn't core territory for either Power. Invasion, now . . well, there's the magic power that comes with having 'em. No one invades you, ever. Also,outside factors could change the math here, like a megavolcano under the west antarctic ice sheet or something that raises ocean levels by meters. That redefines "back against the wall". If your country loses all access to fresh water, well, you might as well be under occupation or destroyed, so you might use your nukes aggressively. Just don't accidentally drop them in the water you're trying to get.

BlueTemplar 3y ago
But that only means that the US would give up on Taiwan before the fight would get any serious (from USA's point of view). I also kind of doubt that China is going to try, at least in the next decade or so, because those so far irreplaceable chip factories are almost certainly booby trapped and are a critical piece of the global economy, so China would be sabotaging itself first. (And Xi has probably a long way to go for Putin-like mistakes.)
- rasz 3y ago
  China is steadily funding Fab R&D. They already managed to get from zero to somewhat modern ram and NAND (YMTC). YMTC is bad https://goughlui.com/2023/10/10/psa-ssds-with-ymtc-flash-prone-to-failure-check-your-ssds/ https://goughlui.com/2023/10/10/psa-ssds-with-ymtc-flash-pro..., but _very_ cheap so eventually will improve and start taking over more and more volume. In couple of years China will get to the point erasing UMC/TSMC does give them advantage.
  - BlueTemplar 3y ago
    That's why I said in the next decade... you seem to be much more optimistic than me about them catching up.
- XorNot 3y ago
  I don't know how to parse this comment. Why would the US give up on Taiwan "before it gets serious". If the US is involved in a shooting conflict in the Taiwanese strait, they either win or lose it conventionally but if it happens at all then nukes aren't getting involved unless mainland territorial invasions go on the table - and they're not going to. The reality is the US would very much like to avoid having to negotiate that situation: far easier to arm Taiwan to the teeth with AA and anti-shipping missiles, and let them take care of it. EDIT: It's also worth noting nukes aren't the only deterrent forces. It's one thing to "know" that the US Navy isn't going to get involved...it's quite another to conduct an invasion of an ally while well inside the missile engagement range of the US Navy on the assumption that's actually true.
  - pas 3y ago
    Are those missiles getting to Taiwan any time soon though? It seems current politics on the island is still uber polite oh we are China, no need for drastic measures, etc. or is that changing fast?
    - 14u2c 3y ago
      They been sending arn for 50 years now.
  - Log_out_ 3y ago
    The US is currently loosing to Russia in Europe, it's all talk no walk, similar to west - europe.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      The US is "loosing" because it barely dipped a toe in the conflict. Motivate the US to go all in and it's a different story altogether. But I agree on the reluctance of Western Europe and the US to give support, the Ukraine conflict could have been over by now with proper support.
      - inglor_cz 3y ago
- clarionbell 3y ago
  People thought the same about Putin, or junta in Argentina. Problem is that they couldn't understand their motivation. Some people, don't care about GDP, well being of their populace or popularity, not to mention media. They don't have to worry about reelections, or retirement. Just maintaining their power. And that gives them time to pursue things politicians from liberal democracies consider things of history.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Mainland China wants Taiwan back since WW2, chip fabs are a bonus, maybe that is. The big problem of a Chinese invasion so is: the Taiwan straight. They have to get the invasion force across, that meens a lot of big, slow, fat transport vessels. Those are easily sunk, meaning not enough boots on the ground. Which leaves pounding Taiwan with missiles.
  - Ygg2 3y ago
    Chinese don't have to invade Taiwan to conquer it. They can take Kinmen isle without breaking a sweat. No one is crazy enough to go to war over it, and that might put Taiwan into panic mode. Another is to isolate it politically and create a soft blockade around it.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Soft blackade, that is pointless. And a hard one is basically an escalation to war (see: Cuban Missile Crisis). A country in, maybe, panic mode is not conquered. And if said island is strategically important enough, yes, people will go to war over it. And if it isn't, there is no real point beyond symbolism to take it in the first place.
- dageshi 3y ago
  I don't really understand why people get so caught up on the fabs in Taiwan, as if their presence is the actual goal or the important thing. An invasion of Taiwan would probably effectively destroy globalisation, China exports would be sanctioned, China imports of energy and raw materials would be heavily disrupted (China's supply of fossil fuels is very vulnerable). It would be the most disruptive event to the world order since WW2. The chip fabs are a line item among thousands on that bill.
  - BlueTemplar 3y ago
    I guess that I am much more confident about globalization quickly finding alternative ways (consider how sanctions on Russia have trouble working, especially for oil).
    - KptMarchewa 3y ago
      People have a big tendency to overestimate how hard is to get over some temporary problema and it's long term importance, when those problems actually tend to commoditize over medium term. Now there are chips, before it was manufacturing and shipping, even before there was oil.
  - the-dude 3y ago
    The US only stopped trading with Nazi Germany after Germany declared war on the them, after Pearl Harbor in December 1941.
    - Sabinus 3y ago
      The US was engaged in a long period of isolationism during that period. The US attitude to world conflict now is vastly different to the views of 1941

lmm 3y ago

> I doubt that something close to Vietnam can happen again either. (And even for a 2nd Vietnam, I doubt that any significant artillery would be used when, as you point out, missiles are an option.) Artillery would be huge, missiles are great but they're expensive and you run out quickly. Afghanistan/Iraq were already being compared to Vietnam, and while you don't see it on the news so much, most of the kills in those conflicts were with artillery.

clarionbell 3y ago

People thought that war in Europe will be impossible. They were wrong. And now we are paying the price. Turns out large conventional war is very much a thing. Right now we have a big one in Europe, handful are brewing around the world. Artillery is still, and for many reasons will be, a king. Shells are order of magnitude cheaper than rockets. They are smaller. Easier to manufacture. Missiles are nice if you want to destroy specific targets. Things that move or are so far away that artillery can't reach them.

hef19898 3y ago
Europe didn't see war since WW2, regional, nasty conflicts in the Balkans and Eastern Europe not withstanding. Conventional, near-peer warfare, involving modern armies, wasn't a thing since Korea. Things change, organizations and people adapt. Not foreseeing these changes is not a failure. Believing that throwing predictions at the wall, and only picking the ones that stick in hindsight, is a viable strategy is just plane wrong so.
euroderf 3y ago
> People thought that war in Europe will be impossible. They were wrong. And now we are paying the price. Turns out large conventional war is very much a thing. Likely this was the biggest surprise to emerge. Even Georgia and Armenia did not foreshadow the scale and slogmatch reality of Ukraine eh. The need for stockpiles is real. > Artillery is still, and for many reasons will be, a king. Shells are order of magnitude cheaper than rockets. They are smaller. Easier to manufacture. This statement is incomplete without also referencing drones. See for example: https://roguesystemsrecon.substack.com/p/drone-war-evolution-in-ukraine https://roguesystemsrecon.substack.com/p/drone-war-evolution...

KineticLensman 3y ago

>> > My solace is that in a real conflict, all of that red tape would be put to the side and people can get about building things. > That's just not going to happen. Check out Urgent Operational Requirements [0] in Op HERRICK (UK name for ops in Afghanistan). These led to multiple entirely new platforms, systems and capabilities being developed and deployed in weeks and months, e.g. physical and electronic countermeasures for the rapidly evolving IED threat. The downside is increased logistics / supply-chain burden because you have additional ad-hoc support contracts and staff, in and out of theatre. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urgent_Operational_Requirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urgent_Operational_Requirement