5 ms·

Yes, as someone reasonably familiar with Chinese politics, history, and military modernisation (for a westerner, anyway), watching our societies sleepwalk into

Yes, as someone reasonably familiar with Chinese politics, history, and military modernisation (for a westerner, anyway), watching our societies sleepwalk into war under the mistaken impressions that 1) the war will be short or 2) we are likely to win, is disturbing. I am genuinely worried about the likely results of the American public psyche when thousands of American soldiers are dead within the first week and there's no feasible military option to break a PLA blockade on Taiwan. I think for a lot of Americans who are used to American military supremacy in the GWOT, including a lot of Americans who weren't even alive for Soviet conventional overmatch, the idea that the USA could lose (not be 'unable to win and give up', but actually physically unable to prevent their enemy from achieving their objectives or seizing and holding territory) is literally unfathomable to them, like the sun rising in the west tomorrow. I am genuinely worried that the US population would overwhelmingly support a nuclear response, even though I trust the American government to not be that stupid.

scrubs 3y ago
There's some truth in what you write. China, unlike say the middle east, constitutes larger risk for the US. Their preoccupation with taiwan is more focused and narrow then the diffuse albeit incremental territory expansion by the grunt warfare of Russia. Nonetheless we must ask if only America would back Taiwan in war. I have tried to suss out Taiwanese preference. While it ebbs and flows I don't think they want the Chinese there. Like the Ukrainians, theirs is a fight of soul not of ideological conquest. China hasn't had their nose bloodied recently; the US has. Thats something. Who'd else would be in? And would it matter? I'm also not sure the Chinese are prepared for the isolation that'd result. Would it really be worth it? The Taiwanese would leave the island or be a permanent "domestic terrorist" force if China wins. But to rejoin the article, AI is but a tool for a goal they already made their mind up about.
r14c 3y ago
It depends a lot on what demographics you're talking about. Unfortunately, the loudest and most politically empowered very likely fall in line with what you're saying. There have been massive anti-war demonstrations in the wake of every US military action in the last 50-70 years, but their voices are not exactly welcomed by the establishment.
- lucubratory 3y ago
  Absolutely, to be clear I'm not at all saying that all Americans are bloodthirsty or anything like that, I have several American friends. I'm more worried about something like a post-9/11 moment, where there's a relatively unified populace and a clear target for hatred, but because said target can't be meaningfully hurt the US just starts lashing out at anyone vaguely associated. I'm worried it will be worse because in this case it wouldn't be "We can't hurt them because we don't know where they are" but "We can't hurt them because they're locally stronger than us and they have nuclear weapons". I'm not sure how many Americans will genuinely, truly understand that you can't treat a nuclear power as though it's Iraq or Japan and you're going to Desert Storm or Hiroshima your way through their military and population, not if you want America as a civilisation to survive.
netsharc 3y ago
So how is the Chinese military in regards to corruption? We all thought Russia still had a great military, but corruption had rotted them out that even their vehicles were using tyres that were apparently decades old and were exposed to the elements. And worse (for Putin), it gave them undertrained, disillusioned soldiers. How is it in China, in your opinion? My feeling is maybe the nationalistic propaganda works better on Chinese soldiers than on Russian ones, that they'll be fighting as patriotically as plenty of US soldiers going into Afghanistan...
- lucubratory 3y ago
  Corruption is absolutely a problem. It is also a recognised, talked about, and actively fought problem at the highest levels, which is very different from the situation in Russia. As well, China culturally has a lot more hope and nationalism than Russia does, and corruption has to hide a bit more from their very, very dedicated and hyper-nationalistic online citizenry, which by default lowers potential payouts from corruption (you can't just be like a Russian official and walk around with diamond encrusted watches no questions asked). China had a much worse corruption problem 15 years ago; it was so bad that it enabled massive CIA infiltration of their military and political apparatus, in a situation analogous to an American finding out that the Republican and Democrat party machines as well as several 3-star generals were on the Chinese payroll. The discovery of how significant CIA infiltration was in ~2010 was a huge shock to the system, and after they were finished catching and killing everyone involved they began the work of trying to root out corruption more seriously to destroy the incentive structure and culture that had allowed that CIA network to take root. It's still ongoing, but anecdotally it seems like they've been making significant success. There's a reasonably good YouTube video on the general topic of "Chinese military corruption" released recently by Perun, it's here: https://youtu.be/vhI_tTEE2ZQ?si=gtZ5YGWnV8q8TLcT https://youtu.be/vhI_tTEE2ZQ?si=gtZ5YGWnV8q8TLcT I have watched it, it is a generally good overview that doesn't get any major factual issues wrong. My only quibbles with it would be things like minor word choices, emphasis, etc.
- nradov 3y ago
  China's military is very corrupt. Much of the materiel has been straight up stolen by military officers and Party cadres. Chairman Xi has been purging elements of the military, partly to reduce corruption but also to eliminate potential political rivals. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-06/us-intelligence-shows-flawed-china-missiles-led-xi-jinping-to-purge-military https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-06/us-intell...
nradov 3y ago
Naval mines delivered by submarines and bombers provide a feasible military option to break a PLA blockade on Taiwan. China is dependent on foreign imports of fossil fuels and other raw materials. That tactic was highly effective against Japan in WW2.
- lucubratory 3y ago
  >Naval mines delivered by submarines and bombers provide a feasible military option to break a PLA blockade on Taiwan. The foundation of this idea is wrong. I would guess that at some point you read something about sea mines being able to seriously complicate a PLA amphibious assault, remembered that as "PLA military objectives over Taiwan can be hurt by sea mines", and have applied it in a context where it makes the opposite of sense. If Taiwan mines its own waters or the US mines those waters for them, that's a self-blockade - hell, it's reasonably possible that mining the Taiwanese coast would be the PLAN's earliest naval goal in a war outside of initial fires. Naval mines are a blockading tool or a tool to frustrate an amphibious assault - they can't prevent a blockade, which can be enforced from Fujian with ground based ASBMs or air launched AShMs. A blockade is preventing ships from making deliveries to an area, and large numbers of civilian ships are the only extant ships which can carry enough resources to support the Taiwanese population. Also, US subs will have free reign east of Taiwan, but they're not going to be in the strait. Waters shallow enough that the subs are visible with the naked eye, surrounded by the densest hydrophone network in the world, facing an active ASW force with depth charges and potentially operationalised SQUIDs, are not going to survive long enough to achieve anything and they know that. Their role will be to prevent uncontested PLAN encirclement of Taiwan and decrease the salvo volume of fires directed at deep strike targets like Guam, as well as ensuring the PLAN dies if they attempt to reach outside the 1st chain with surface vessels. Stealth bombers with a fighter escort would very likely be able to deliver ordinance around Taiwan while running significant risks, but using that ordinance to contribute to a blockade of Taiwan would be wrongheaded compared to strikes on PLARF or PLAAF assets on the mainland that could actually degrade PLA capabilities rather than teaming up with them to achieve their goals. >China is dependent on foreign imports of fossil fuels and other raw materials. That tactic was highly effective against Japan in WW2. This always gets brought up, and I really doubt it will work in the way it gets talked about (i.e. severe enough to stop the PLA from performing X operation 1 month or 1 year into the war). For one, people can ration and the Chinese population is very nationalistic, for another the PRC is keenly aware of these risks and has been actively mitigating them for more than a decade with significant success. Some non-comprehensive examples: car electrification to reduce civilian oil dependency; the trade link from inland China through a nuclear-armed ally to Gwadar port to bypass a potential Malacca blockade; electric high speed trains to replace otherwise fuel intensive domestic flights; massive roll out of nuclear power plants, renewables, and energy storage to lessen fossil fuel dependence for power generation; importing fossil fuels from e.g. Australia rather than significantly digging into their own reserves; building out hundreds of high capacity inland pipelines and railways with Russia to ensure uninterrupted trade in bulk cargo in the event of a naval blockade; and of course the PRC's strategic stockpiles of various goods (pork, oil, rice etc) that they've been building up for decades. Basically, China is not Japan and Japan didn't have land borders with 12 countries, one of whom is a significant ally and controller of the world's largest natural resource reserves and another of which gives them port access to the Red Sea trade route an ocean away from the westpac theatre.

scrubs 3y ago

There's some truth in what you write. China, unlike say the middle east, constitutes larger risk for the US. Their preoccupation with taiwan is more focused and narrow then the diffuse albeit incremental territory expansion by the grunt warfare of Russia. Nonetheless we must ask if only America would back Taiwan in war. I have tried to suss out Taiwanese preference. While it ebbs and flows I don't think they want the Chinese there. Like the Ukrainians, theirs is a fight of soul not of ideological conquest. China hasn't had their nose bloodied recently; the US has. Thats something. Who'd else would be in? And would it matter? I'm also not sure the Chinese are prepared for the isolation that'd result. Would it really be worth it? The Taiwanese would leave the island or be a permanent "domestic terrorist" force if China wins. But to rejoin the article, AI is but a tool for a goal they already made their mind up about.

r14c 3y ago

It depends a lot on what demographics you're talking about. Unfortunately, the loudest and most politically empowered very likely fall in line with what you're saying. There have been massive anti-war demonstrations in the wake of every US military action in the last 50-70 years, but their voices are not exactly welcomed by the establishment.

lucubratory 3y ago
Absolutely, to be clear I'm not at all saying that all Americans are bloodthirsty or anything like that, I have several American friends. I'm more worried about something like a post-9/11 moment, where there's a relatively unified populace and a clear target for hatred, but because said target can't be meaningfully hurt the US just starts lashing out at anyone vaguely associated. I'm worried it will be worse because in this case it wouldn't be "We can't hurt them because we don't know where they are" but "We can't hurt them because they're locally stronger than us and they have nuclear weapons". I'm not sure how many Americans will genuinely, truly understand that you can't treat a nuclear power as though it's Iraq or Japan and you're going to Desert Storm or Hiroshima your way through their military and population, not if you want America as a civilisation to survive.

netsharc 3y ago

So how is the Chinese military in regards to corruption? We all thought Russia still had a great military, but corruption had rotted them out that even their vehicles were using tyres that were apparently decades old and were exposed to the elements. And worse (for Putin), it gave them undertrained, disillusioned soldiers. How is it in China, in your opinion? My feeling is maybe the nationalistic propaganda works better on Chinese soldiers than on Russian ones, that they'll be fighting as patriotically as plenty of US soldiers going into Afghanistan...

lucubratory 3y ago
Corruption is absolutely a problem. It is also a recognised, talked about, and actively fought problem at the highest levels, which is very different from the situation in Russia. As well, China culturally has a lot more hope and nationalism than Russia does, and corruption has to hide a bit more from their very, very dedicated and hyper-nationalistic online citizenry, which by default lowers potential payouts from corruption (you can't just be like a Russian official and walk around with diamond encrusted watches no questions asked). China had a much worse corruption problem 15 years ago; it was so bad that it enabled massive CIA infiltration of their military and political apparatus, in a situation analogous to an American finding out that the Republican and Democrat party machines as well as several 3-star generals were on the Chinese payroll. The discovery of how significant CIA infiltration was in ~2010 was a huge shock to the system, and after they were finished catching and killing everyone involved they began the work of trying to root out corruption more seriously to destroy the incentive structure and culture that had allowed that CIA network to take root. It's still ongoing, but anecdotally it seems like they've been making significant success. There's a reasonably good YouTube video on the general topic of "Chinese military corruption" released recently by Perun, it's here: https://youtu.be/vhI_tTEE2ZQ?si=gtZ5YGWnV8q8TLcT https://youtu.be/vhI_tTEE2ZQ?si=gtZ5YGWnV8q8TLcT I have watched it, it is a generally good overview that doesn't get any major factual issues wrong. My only quibbles with it would be things like minor word choices, emphasis, etc.
nradov 3y ago
China's military is very corrupt. Much of the materiel has been straight up stolen by military officers and Party cadres. Chairman Xi has been purging elements of the military, partly to reduce corruption but also to eliminate potential political rivals. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-06/us-intelligence-shows-flawed-china-missiles-led-xi-jinping-to-purge-military https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-06/us-intell...

nradov 3y ago

Naval mines delivered by submarines and bombers provide a feasible military option to break a PLA blockade on Taiwan. China is dependent on foreign imports of fossil fuels and other raw materials. That tactic was highly effective against Japan in WW2.

lucubratory 3y ago
>Naval mines delivered by submarines and bombers provide a feasible military option to break a PLA blockade on Taiwan. The foundation of this idea is wrong. I would guess that at some point you read something about sea mines being able to seriously complicate a PLA amphibious assault, remembered that as "PLA military objectives over Taiwan can be hurt by sea mines", and have applied it in a context where it makes the opposite of sense. If Taiwan mines its own waters or the US mines those waters for them, that's a self-blockade - hell, it's reasonably possible that mining the Taiwanese coast would be the PLAN's earliest naval goal in a war outside of initial fires. Naval mines are a blockading tool or a tool to frustrate an amphibious assault - they can't prevent a blockade, which can be enforced from Fujian with ground based ASBMs or air launched AShMs. A blockade is preventing ships from making deliveries to an area, and large numbers of civilian ships are the only extant ships which can carry enough resources to support the Taiwanese population. Also, US subs will have free reign east of Taiwan, but they're not going to be in the strait. Waters shallow enough that the subs are visible with the naked eye, surrounded by the densest hydrophone network in the world, facing an active ASW force with depth charges and potentially operationalised SQUIDs, are not going to survive long enough to achieve anything and they know that. Their role will be to prevent uncontested PLAN encirclement of Taiwan and decrease the salvo volume of fires directed at deep strike targets like Guam, as well as ensuring the PLAN dies if they attempt to reach outside the 1st chain with surface vessels. Stealth bombers with a fighter escort would very likely be able to deliver ordinance around Taiwan while running significant risks, but using that ordinance to contribute to a blockade of Taiwan would be wrongheaded compared to strikes on PLARF or PLAAF assets on the mainland that could actually degrade PLA capabilities rather than teaming up with them to achieve their goals. >China is dependent on foreign imports of fossil fuels and other raw materials. That tactic was highly effective against Japan in WW2. This always gets brought up, and I really doubt it will work in the way it gets talked about (i.e. severe enough to stop the PLA from performing X operation 1 month or 1 year into the war). For one, people can ration and the Chinese population is very nationalistic, for another the PRC is keenly aware of these risks and has been actively mitigating them for more than a decade with significant success. Some non-comprehensive examples: car electrification to reduce civilian oil dependency; the trade link from inland China through a nuclear-armed ally to Gwadar port to bypass a potential Malacca blockade; electric high speed trains to replace otherwise fuel intensive domestic flights; massive roll out of nuclear power plants, renewables, and energy storage to lessen fossil fuel dependence for power generation; importing fossil fuels from e.g. Australia rather than significantly digging into their own reserves; building out hundreds of high capacity inland pipelines and railways with Russia to ensure uninterrupted trade in bulk cargo in the event of a naval blockade; and of course the PRC's strategic stockpiles of various goods (pork, oil, rice etc) that they've been building up for decades. Basically, China is not Japan and Japan didn't have land borders with 12 countries, one of whom is a significant ally and controller of the world's largest natural resource reserves and another of which gives them port access to the Red Sea trade route an ocean away from the westpac theatre.