4 ms·

Scenario in OP Is kind of stupid, if PRC decides to blockade TW, they're not going to depend on EW to deter USN, they're just going to mine the shit out of area

Scenario in OP Is kind of stupid, if PRC decides to blockade TW, they're not going to depend on EW to deter USN, they're just going to mine the shit out of area. US+partners has functionally nonexistent demining capability relative to what PRC can lay (USN couldn't even keep up with token desperate Iraq mining in Gulf), which is to say no one (except PRC utilizing civilian ships in contingency) has such capability at scale, and only in the specific context of aggregating repurposed hulls direct off her shores. The reality is if PRC wants to blockade TW, there's not a thing anyone can do about it. Realistically there's not even a thing US can even try to do about it. PRC executing WW2 operation starvation on TW, a smaller geography to cordon sanitaire, with PRC's magnitude greater industrial output and closer logistics tail relative to US vs JP. The math isn't just bleak, it's almost a solved equation. "How can we win". Of course no one is going to admit it can't be done. But still very useful to hammer these hypothetical scenarios to direct industrial policy.

hash872 2y ago
A blockade is like the least likely thing to happen. Taiwan has years of foods & oil stored up already, so it would take a very long time to be effective. Meanwhile I've seen projections that China's economy would immediately shrink 9% without Taiwanese chips. It would be a very slow burn with a long payoff for China, if ever. What's worse for China is that it would give the US time to put ships in exactly the position that it wants, then fire first. The US Navy could take a couple weeks to get all of their forces in alignment, then fire at will. The Chinese navy would be a sitting duck in a blockade- naval engagements favor the party who's willing to attack first, like a gunfighter in the old west. I don't necessarily think that the US can win a shooting war in the Pacific, I just think that a blockade is the least likely scenario. Instead China would go with an active invasion force for Taiwan and pre-emptively missile Guam, US bases on Japan, South Korea, etc. They could definitely win that way- but they'd definitely lose if they only blockaded and didn't actually take the opportunity to shoot first
- maxglute 2y ago
  > TW stores TW food security and energy with strategic storage factored in is weeks. Also most likely stores will go boom, along with most of TW defensive infra. IMO biggest poor thinking in strategic writings is blockade is non kinetic, PRC not stupid enough to blockade TW and not defang island first. Hitting energy infra for refrigeration and water infra and timer starts ticking even sooner. IMO it's pretty obvious US/west going to lose more than PRC if 90%+ of highend semi already largely denied to PRC is gone. > sitting duck PLAN isn't going to do any of the blockading, it's going to be coast guard since PRC will treat it as a civil (war) law enforcement. But ultimately, US-PRC war isn't just a naval engagement, it's whole of military systems engagement, PRC has more landbased fires that can destroy USN than PLAN does. Nevermind enagaging PLAN ships means USN has to be within 1-2IC, aka within PRC A2D2 bubble. It doesn't matter USN shoots first, because PLA ISR will pickup launches and PLArocketforce will shoot minutes after, (assuming PLAN doesn't immediately counter fire) before USN ordnance even reaches target, or US shooters get away. In the end everyone will have a bunch of dead ships. PRC gladly trade PLAN for USN since US hegemony loses more without navy vs PRC. Who also has 600x more ship building to reconstitute navy. >blockade is the least likely scenario I think blockade should assumed default because it's so easily executable and starts timer on potential TW capitulation. It should be assumed that it's baseline response, on top of other scenarios, i.e. taking out US+partner war making abilities within 1IC. Whatever else happens, including nothing, the blockade will be happening on the background.
  - ls612 2y ago
    Preemptively striking USN/USAF bases and forces in the first island chain is on one hand game-theoretically correct for the Chinese side as their goal is to win fast. On the other hand though, the one way to well and truly wake up the sleeping giant and unite it against you like nothing else can is to kill thousands of sailors and airmen on Day 1, as Japan learned the hard way. And much like Japan, the PRC can be strangled in a long drawn out naval conflict from outside of its A2AD bubble. China is not food or energy independent, imports most of its base metals for production uses, and Russia can only provide so much over land. There is no substitute for middle eastern oil or Australian and Brazilian iron for the PRC. All plausible scenarios of PRC victory in a Pacific escalation scenario have the flaw of the Chinese side assuming "We blow up all the US military assets in the region and the USA gives up". As soon as the US starts to fight back and move its economy to a war footing China will face the same crushing resource shortages that ruined Imperial Japan, while conversely there is little to nothing they can do to prevent the US from continuing to import every raw material it needs to fight and win a war.
Log_out_ 2y ago
first year of the war :ukraine can't win against russia third year: ukraine will have to give back the territory it conquered . maybe we crossed a strange, singular point somewhere, that makes the small and intelligent ,more powerful then the big and mighty. Maybe all your truths are just empires wishing for a world were it would hold.
- Fauntleroy 2y ago
  It's beyond foolish to compare the invasion of Ukraine by Russia with an invasion/attack on Taiwan by China.
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    more seababies and 3gorges damn cruise missiles?
- maxglute 2y ago
  No, for sensible analysts, it was UKR likely can hold out RU for as long as it can be supplied (porous land borders), and it has bodies to throw at grinder. The timer extends everytime UKR gets new supplies, tries to reconstitute new forces, with said supplies. TW scenario is one where blockaded island cannot be supplied under motivated PRC siege, and the mere act of blockading (starvation), throws basically everyone into the grinder with a timer on survival especialy in an island far beyond it's natural carrying capacity. It's just acknowledging that historically if a sieger can maintain a siege, the sieged either capitulates or starves to death. PRC sieging TW directly off her coast with modern tech is all things considered, relative to the logistics historic distant sieges, easy mode.
digging 2y ago
> Electronic warfare is their go to choice in this scenario. What follows is not some fantasy I've invented; China has written about this exact response extensively. I'd like to see a little more substance if you're directly refuting this statement from TFA and calling it stupid. You may be right, but TFA demonstrates research on this exact topic and your comment does not.
- maxglute 2y ago
  If a PRC piece suggest PLAN could just EW their way to parking nukes on Cuba for Cuban missile crisis round 2, the obvious follow up is... that's stupid, and obviously won't work because US has other responses in CONUS ontop of just EW to stop PRC efforts. Like the only way one can conjure up TFA scenario where EW makes/breaks a TW blockade, as oppose to being one component in layers of capabilities, some of which are much more effective (incase of mining, overwhelmingly so), is if thinking behind article is stupid, or charitably ignorant, or deliberately ignorant, to push XYZ narrative, in this case fund EW, which is important. Suggesting USN with superior EW can just... waltze through PRC blockade is insinuating PLA is so shortsighted that they won't use their massive mining capbility as contingency, or op is shortsighted on actual PLA TW scenarios, or again charitably, deliberately ignorant to sell EW.
  - digging 2y ago
    > Suggesting USN with superior EW can just... waltze through PRC blockade But TFA explicitly says that's not what it's suggesting...?
    - maxglute 2y ago
      TFA explicitly use PLA EW blinding/jamming USN fleet to deter blockade running, so important to pay more attention to EW. TFA also acknowledges not expert on strategy/tactics, so it can be overlooked to author chose to focus on one scenario where PRC media has talked about EW. But also important to highlight more resilient USN EW in this scenario is not really make or break, hence scenario stupid for selling better EW, since there's so many other layers of deterence and outright denial that makes US ability to break blockade more or less impossible. A not stupid scenario would be PRC claims of frequent EW showdowns with USN in SCS this year, i.e. allegedly linked to USN dismissing an EA-18G Growler (EW variant of F18) commander on USS Carl Vinson for loss of confidence.

hash872 2y ago

A blockade is like the least likely thing to happen. Taiwan has years of foods & oil stored up already, so it would take a very long time to be effective. Meanwhile I've seen projections that China's economy would immediately shrink 9% without Taiwanese chips. It would be a very slow burn with a long payoff for China, if ever. What's worse for China is that it would give the US time to put ships in exactly the position that it wants, then fire first. The US Navy could take a couple weeks to get all of their forces in alignment, then fire at will. The Chinese navy would be a sitting duck in a blockade- naval engagements favor the party who's willing to attack first, like a gunfighter in the old west. I don't necessarily think that the US can win a shooting war in the Pacific, I just think that a blockade is the least likely scenario. Instead China would go with an active invasion force for Taiwan and pre-emptively missile Guam, US bases on Japan, South Korea, etc. They could definitely win that way- but they'd definitely lose if they only blockaded and didn't actually take the opportunity to shoot first

maxglute 2y ago
> TW stores TW food security and energy with strategic storage factored in is weeks. Also most likely stores will go boom, along with most of TW defensive infra. IMO biggest poor thinking in strategic writings is blockade is non kinetic, PRC not stupid enough to blockade TW and not defang island first. Hitting energy infra for refrigeration and water infra and timer starts ticking even sooner. IMO it's pretty obvious US/west going to lose more than PRC if 90%+ of highend semi already largely denied to PRC is gone. > sitting duck PLAN isn't going to do any of the blockading, it's going to be coast guard since PRC will treat it as a civil (war) law enforcement. But ultimately, US-PRC war isn't just a naval engagement, it's whole of military systems engagement, PRC has more landbased fires that can destroy USN than PLAN does. Nevermind enagaging PLAN ships means USN has to be within 1-2IC, aka within PRC A2D2 bubble. It doesn't matter USN shoots first, because PLA ISR will pickup launches and PLArocketforce will shoot minutes after, (assuming PLAN doesn't immediately counter fire) before USN ordnance even reaches target, or US shooters get away. In the end everyone will have a bunch of dead ships. PRC gladly trade PLAN for USN since US hegemony loses more without navy vs PRC. Who also has 600x more ship building to reconstitute navy. >blockade is the least likely scenario I think blockade should assumed default because it's so easily executable and starts timer on potential TW capitulation. It should be assumed that it's baseline response, on top of other scenarios, i.e. taking out US+partner war making abilities within 1IC. Whatever else happens, including nothing, the blockade will be happening on the background.
- ls612 2y ago
  Preemptively striking USN/USAF bases and forces in the first island chain is on one hand game-theoretically correct for the Chinese side as their goal is to win fast. On the other hand though, the one way to well and truly wake up the sleeping giant and unite it against you like nothing else can is to kill thousands of sailors and airmen on Day 1, as Japan learned the hard way. And much like Japan, the PRC can be strangled in a long drawn out naval conflict from outside of its A2AD bubble. China is not food or energy independent, imports most of its base metals for production uses, and Russia can only provide so much over land. There is no substitute for middle eastern oil or Australian and Brazilian iron for the PRC. All plausible scenarios of PRC victory in a Pacific escalation scenario have the flaw of the Chinese side assuming "We blow up all the US military assets in the region and the USA gives up". As soon as the US starts to fight back and move its economy to a war footing China will face the same crushing resource shortages that ruined Imperial Japan, while conversely there is little to nothing they can do to prevent the US from continuing to import every raw material it needs to fight and win a war.

Log_out_ 2y ago

first year of the war :ukraine can't win against russia third year: ukraine will have to give back the territory it conquered . maybe we crossed a strange, singular point somewhere, that makes the small and intelligent ,more powerful then the big and mighty. Maybe all your truths are just empires wishing for a world were it would hold.

Fauntleroy 2y ago
It's beyond foolish to compare the invasion of Ukraine by Russia with an invasion/attack on Taiwan by China.
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  more seababies and 3gorges damn cruise missiles?
maxglute 2y ago
No, for sensible analysts, it was UKR likely can hold out RU for as long as it can be supplied (porous land borders), and it has bodies to throw at grinder. The timer extends everytime UKR gets new supplies, tries to reconstitute new forces, with said supplies. TW scenario is one where blockaded island cannot be supplied under motivated PRC siege, and the mere act of blockading (starvation), throws basically everyone into the grinder with a timer on survival especialy in an island far beyond it's natural carrying capacity. It's just acknowledging that historically if a sieger can maintain a siege, the sieged either capitulates or starves to death. PRC sieging TW directly off her coast with modern tech is all things considered, relative to the logistics historic distant sieges, easy mode.

digging 2y ago

> Electronic warfare is their go to choice in this scenario. What follows is not some fantasy I've invented; China has written about this exact response extensively. I'd like to see a little more substance if you're directly refuting this statement from TFA and calling it stupid. You may be right, but TFA demonstrates research on this exact topic and your comment does not.

maxglute 2y ago
If a PRC piece suggest PLAN could just EW their way to parking nukes on Cuba for Cuban missile crisis round 2, the obvious follow up is... that's stupid, and obviously won't work because US has other responses in CONUS ontop of just EW to stop PRC efforts. Like the only way one can conjure up TFA scenario where EW makes/breaks a TW blockade, as oppose to being one component in layers of capabilities, some of which are much more effective (incase of mining, overwhelmingly so), is if thinking behind article is stupid, or charitably ignorant, or deliberately ignorant, to push XYZ narrative, in this case fund EW, which is important. Suggesting USN with superior EW can just... waltze through PRC blockade is insinuating PLA is so shortsighted that they won't use their massive mining capbility as contingency, or op is shortsighted on actual PLA TW scenarios, or again charitably, deliberately ignorant to sell EW.
- digging 2y ago
  > Suggesting USN with superior EW can just... waltze through PRC blockade But TFA explicitly says that's not what it's suggesting...?
  - maxglute 2y ago
    TFA explicitly use PLA EW blinding/jamming USN fleet to deter blockade running, so important to pay more attention to EW. TFA also acknowledges not expert on strategy/tactics, so it can be overlooked to author chose to focus on one scenario where PRC media has talked about EW. But also important to highlight more resilient USN EW in this scenario is not really make or break, hence scenario stupid for selling better EW, since there's so many other layers of deterence and outright denial that makes US ability to break blockade more or less impossible. A not stupid scenario would be PRC claims of frequent EW showdowns with USN in SCS this year, i.e. allegedly linked to USN dismissing an EA-18G Growler (EW variant of F18) commander on USS Carl Vinson for loss of confidence.