Taiwan - China Brewing Conflict : Discussions

[Parthu]

Pretty big development.

China Suddenly Building Fleet Of Special Barges Suitable For Taiwan Landings - Naval News

China is building at least five new special purpose barges which appear tailor made for amphibious assault. The barges may provide the PRC (People's Republic of China) with a unique way to offload large numbers of tanks directly onto Taiwanese roads.

www.navalnews.com

This new ship design is meant to navigate around the lack of landing beaches in Taiwan.

Difficult to invade during Trump's era though. The last thing the Chinese want is an unpredictable American leader with a spine and a foot in the grave.

I think Trump's term would be the perfect time for China to act. Trump most probably can't (and won't) ask Americans to die defending Taiwan.

Over the next couple years, once the new Intel fabs in US are up & running fully, there won't even be much of an economic reason for getting involved in protecting Taiwan. The reshoring of semiconductor manufacturing was done precisely to afford US this option should it come to it.

Most conventional think-tank (and even US military) estimates for the Taiwan invasion place it in 2027 or sooner anyway.

Not to mention, it's very unlikely for the US to come off victorious in such a war. The US/West don't have the industrial strength to come out on top over such a short-range conflict. If China refocuses its entire industrial capacity to the war effort, they can outproduce the US ten times over in everything that matters in a Taiwan war. Ammo, artillery, drones, landing craft, missiles.

And there won't be an upper limit for what China would be willing to do in order to not lose in Taiwan because Taiwan is gonna be like their Stalingrad. If they lose that war, the CCP will no longer have the political capital to stay in control. But there will be limits to what the US can do.

Most likely, they'll seek to deter China from attempting an invasion altogether (what Trump's "Peace through Strength" is all about), but if that fails, they'll most likely seek to build up their war machine to lock in the Second Island Chain, which is much more defensible and plays to America's strengths (range & power projection) rather than engaging in Taiwan where overcoming PLA's local superiority might not be possible.

They might also seek to redirect China's aggression toward a country they're not obligated to defend - like India, which would wear them down and postpone the Taiwan invasion to a time when the Chinese economic/demographic situation would be worse than now. It would also help soften our stance toward accepting US terms for a future alliance so two birds one stone. Plus, India comes with a built-in escalation backstop due to nuclear weapons, so more manageable as well (simple border war compared to total invasion/occupation like Taiwan would be).

And thankfully, their economy's not interested in warfare.

Lost decade: Is China facing a Japan-like situation? Yields on government bonds are tanking, triggering worries that the world's second-biggest economy could be facing a multiyear economic slowdown

China's bond market is currently in a sorry state as yields are currently tanking by a whopping level. Things are currently at a stage where an economic slowdown could soon become a reality.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

Well, things are only gonna get worse for them over the next 50 years. Which means the sooner they act, the better (from a demography/economy perspective).

Similar calculations led Russia to play their hand in Ukraine when they did. Longer they waited, worse it would get for them.

 

[Innominate]

Ahhh yes the Taiwan will be easily defeated prediction... same prediction that was said about Ukraine and look where that is. Difference is Taiwan actually has teeth unlike Ukraine. PLA suffers from the same illness the Russian military suffers from and that is lack of combine arms fighting capability and corruption. PLA have no Joint-Command style military which is thee most important part of warfare in todays high-tech conditions.

All PLA airbases and naval bases that will be used to attack Taiwan are in range of Taiwan cruise missiles and those airbases and naval bases will be packed with volatile equipment and weapon systems. As we seen in Ukraine and Israel conventional ballistic missiles are useless in war with Russia firing over 11,000 since the start of the war and Iran firing almost 600 with no effect.

Taiwan is likely going to have weeks worth of heads-up and more than likely start with a naval blockade which is an act of war giving Taiwan the excuse to go weapons free.

 

[randomradio]

I think Trump's term would be the perfect time for China to act. Trump most probably can't (and won't) ask Americans to die defending Taiwan.

Over the next couple years, once the new Intel fabs in US are up & running fully, there won't even be much of an economic reason for getting involved in protecting Taiwan. The reshoring of semiconductor manufacturing was done precisely to afford US this option should it come to it.

Most conventional think-tank (and even US military) estimates for the Taiwan invasion place it in 2027 or sooner anyway.

Not to mention, it's very unlikely for the US to come off victorious in such a war. The US/West don't have the industrial strength to come out on top over such a short-range conflict. If China refocuses its entire industrial capacity to the war effort, they can outproduce the US ten times over in everything that matters in a Taiwan war. Ammo, artillery, drones, landing craft, missiles.

And there won't be an upper limit for what China would be willing to do in order to not lose in Taiwan because Taiwan is gonna be like their Stalingrad. If they lose that war, the CCP will no longer have the political capital to stay in control. But there will be limits to what the US can do.

Most likely, they'll seek to deter China from attempting an invasion altogether (what Trump's "Peace through Strength" is all about), but if that fails, they'll most likely seek to build up their war machine to lock in the Second Island Chain, which is much more defensible and plays to America's strengths (range & power projection) rather than engaging in Taiwan where overcoming PLA's local superiority might not be possible.

They might also seek to redirect China's aggression toward a country they're not obligated to defend - like India, which would wear them down and postpone the Taiwan invasion to a time when the Chinese economic/demographic situation would be worse than now. It would also help soften our stance toward accepting US terms for a future alliance so two birds one stone. Plus, India comes with a built-in escalation backstop due to nuclear weapons, so more manageable as well (simple border war compared to total invasion/occupation like Taiwan would be).

If the Chinese take Taiwan, then the US will lose control of WESTPAC. And in time, SoKo and Japan will fall under China's sphere of influence. And then SCS, post which Australia becomes indefensible, followed by South Pacific Islands. The Second Island Chain is useless without the first. That's why the semiconductor industry is actually irrelevant to the Taiwan equation. People have set their eyes too short here. During such major geopolitical tussles, civilians are just livestock. The fight is for a 165 million sqkm ocean and all the countries within it.

Plus Trump's ego is bigger than the Chinese military. While he won't start a fight, he can be very unpredictable if pushed into one. Even he can see what's at stake.

Western military estimates are for 2027 because Xi himself said the military needs to finish preparations before 2027. It's either a distraction or real, but the date is special for the CCP 'cause that's when the civil war began. The next one is 1949, when it ended, and that's when CCP hopes China will be number one. The West is just playing along, but that's no guarantee for an invasion.

Otoh, some individuals have pointed out that the US would prefer to fight within this decade, when their navy and air force are far stronger and can decimate Chinese military and infrastructure for quite a few decades, allowing rival countries like India and the SCS to catch up.

Well, things are only gonna get worse for them over the next 50 years. Which means the sooner they act, the better (from a demography/economy perspective).

They still have 30+ years before things get punishing. Japan's population decline began in 2008 and the really bad effects are yet to come. It's 'cause even if pop is declining, there are enough young people around. Youth from 2008 need to hit their 50s and 60s before the effects really come to the fore, when they see there are no kids around to take care of them.

And robotics could push us into unknown territories. The Chinese are replacing their workers with automation, could happen to soldiers too. So even the youth of today could be taken care of by androids and other robots.

So I don't think population's going to be a major factor in this area.

Similar calculations led Russia to play their hand in Ukraine when they did. Longer they waited, worse it would get for them.

I disagree. The Russians had no plans of actually fighting a war. They were neither ready, nor were the soldiers informed of the invasion. Kremlin thought there won't be a war.

 

[randomradio]

Ahhh yes the Taiwan will be easily defeated prediction... same prediction that was said about Ukraine and look where that is. Difference is Taiwan actually has teeth unlike Ukraine. PLA suffers from the same illness the Russian military suffers from and that is lack of combine arms fighting capability and corruption. PLA have no Joint-Command style military which is thee most important part of warfare in todays high-tech conditions.

All PLA airbases and naval bases that will be used to attack Taiwan are in range of Taiwan cruise missiles and those airbases and naval bases will be packed with volatile equipment and weapon systems.

Based on what Parthu said above, any immediate success is incumbent on the US actually not intervening. If the Chinese create lodgment, even the US won't be able to force them out, forget Taiwan.

Btw, China has joint command. They set it up nearly a decade ago. They have the Joint Chiefs and everything along with theater commands.

Joint Staff Department (China) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As we seen in Ukraine and Israel conventional ballistic missiles are useless in war with Russia firing over 11,000 since the start of the war and Iran firing almost 600 with no effect.

Taiwan is likely going to have weeks worth of heads-up and more than likely start with a naval blockade which is an act of war giving Taiwan the excuse to go weapons free.

Not true. BMs are very good, or nobody would be making them. The US quit the INF Treaty recognizing that fact. Iran's attacks were deliberately too small, and Russia's missing a lot of other capabilities needed to follow-through after a BM salvo after SAMs are used up. It's the cost of Putin sitting on his a** for 15 years since he came to power.

 

[Parthu]

If the Chinese take Taiwan, then the US will lose control of WESTPAC. And in time, SoKo and Japan will fall under China's sphere of influence. And then SCS, post which Australia becomes indefensible, followed by South Pacific Islands. The Second Island Chain is useless without the first. That's why the semiconductor industry is actually irrelevant to the Taiwan equation. People have set their eyes too short here. During such major geopolitical tussles, civilians are just livestock. The fight is for a 165 million sqkm ocean and all the countries within it.

They said the same for why South Vietnam needs to be defended. The defence failed (and costed the US Govt a lot of political capital with its own citizens) but the situation in the region didn't really change much.

Even with Taiwan under control, China would still be surrounded by US & Allied bases along the Second chain, along with First chain places like Japan (which are much more defensible and resupply-able unlike Taiwan which is relatively easy to blockade).

Japan & SK will likely be going nuclear in order to stay out of China's influence. Trump was actually a fan of the idea:

Donald Trump: Japan, South Korea might need nuclear weapons

"It's going to happen anyway -- it's only a question of time," Trump said of the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons

www.cbsnews.com

Abe & the SK Prez managed to strike a deal with him to maintain status quo but the power equation between them & China will continue to shift in China's favour for the foreseeable future so the status quo won't remain for long anyway. It'll cost the US too much to support Japan/SK all by itself.

Not to mention, Japan has a lot of historical baggage in the region & will not tolerate becoming behooved to China of all countries. They'll go nuclear before that happens. SK might have other thoughts but if Japan goes nuclear, they will too.

Plus Trump's ego is bigger than the Chinese military. While he won't start a fight, he can be very unpredictable if pushed into one. Even he can see what's at stake.

Being seen as unpredictable/irrational is something that Trump cultivates to use to his advantage. He has never actually made any decision in office that can be seen as irrational or not well thought-out.

In fact he's been the sanest, most level-headed POTUS this century. And he managed to stay that way while concurrently changing the status quo in several places toward America's advantage, Abraham Accords being the biggest example.

Trump is no fool. He won't get America into a type of war it cannot win, and with even the only possible reward being a simple continuation of the status quo.

He'll do whatever it takes to deter China. And if deterrence fails, he'll do whatever necessary to indirectly support Taiwan (like Ukraine) using Japan as a conduit for supplies. He'd most likely threaten to block Malacca with his Navy and cut off China's energy & trade unless Beijing allows for supplies to come through to Taiwan.

Unless the US gets directly involved (which it likely won't), China will be confident that it can eventually grind down any opposition in Taiwan regardless of them being resupplied, so they'll probably oblige. Because the alternative (having oil & trade cut off indefinitely) would likely introduce a lot of societal instability in China that CCP can ill-afford in the long term. Even getting bogged down in conflict (remember, Taiwan is mountainous) will be preferred over that, as long as China is assured of eventual victory.

So a lot of the PLA's strength (and China's economy) will be eroded on the Taiwan war, which will leave them unable to pursue an all-out conflict with any bigger fish like Japan or India for the foreseeable future - in the meantime, their demography & post-war economic slump would leave them weaker.

That might be the best possible outcome, given everything China has already built up & is prepared for - and that can possibly be achieved without a single American having to die. Trump will consider it.

They still have 30+ years before things get punishing. Japan's population decline began in 2008 and the really bad effects are yet to come. It's 'cause even if pop is declining, there are enough young people around. Youth from 2008 need to hit their 50s and 60s before the effects really come to the fore, when they see there are no kids around to take care of them.

And robotics could push us into unknown territories. The Chinese are replacing their workers with automation, could happen to soldiers too. So even the youth of today could be taken care of by androids and other robots.

So I don't think population's going to be a major factor in this area.

The Chinese population figures are actually overstated to a fair degree. Their demographic problem is a lot worse than even they admit - plus they have a very unnatural population pyramid due to the forced 1-child policy which is not the case for Japan.

The problem is, the Chinese have decided to take on 3 major powers at the same time, which all require considerable manpower to beat militarily.

China's ability to pursue a robotic workforce might be severely hampered due to the sanctions placed on chip exports. China might be able to catch up to some extent with existing technology but they will fall behind more & more with each successive generation of computing.

I disagree. The Russians had no plans of actually fighting a war. They were neither ready, nor were the soldiers informed of the invasion. Kremlin thought there won't be a war.

I'm sure they didn't realize Ukraine would turn out the way it did, but it's unlikely that demographics & timeframes did not play a part in their decision to move when they did.

If Ukraine could not be guaranteed as a neutral country, then they had to move to close the Bessarabian gap & anchor themselves to the Carpathians at some point anyway.

Putin is capable of looking at a chart and understanding what it means. In the event that NATO does decide to get involved (at least to grab the Western half of Ukraine to prevent Russia from taking it), he'd need manpower to push them out.

The longer he decided to wait, the less the manpower he (or his successor) would potentially have on hand. AND, perhaps more importantly - the less the percentage of ethnic Russians in the manpower he does end up getting. Which means less people willing to fight & die for him instead of for some regional warlord like Kadyrov, who could take the opportunity to declare independence or try something else.

Russians managed to see their worst fears (wrt mobilization) come to pass - all without actually having to fight NATO forces directly. That's a different story. They lost too many men for not all that much gained in return.

Putin would've wanted all of Ukraine & all of Moldova for the number of men he lost just to take 20% of Ukraine (half of which was already in defacto Russian control/influence before the war). The planning & intelligence groundwork (and geopolitical anticipation) of this war has been an utter disaster as far as Russia is concerned.

 

[randomradio]

They said the same for why South Vietnam needs to be defended. The defence failed (and costed the US Govt a lot of political capital with its own citizens) but the situation in the region didn't really change much.

Even with Taiwan under control, China would still be surrounded by US & Allied bases along the Second chain, along with First chain places like Japan (which are much more defensible and resupply-able unlike Taiwan which is relatively easy to blockade).

Japan & SK will likely be going nuclear in order to stay out of China's influence. Trump was actually a fan of the idea:

Donald Trump: Japan, South Korea might need nuclear weapons

"It's going to happen anyway -- it's only a question of time," Trump said of the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons

www.cbsnews.com

Abe & the SK Prez managed to strike a deal with him to maintain status quo but the power equation between them & China will continue to shift in China's favour for the foreseeable future so the status quo won't remain for long anyway. It'll cost the US too much to support Japan/SK all by itself.

Not to mention, Japan has a lot of historical baggage in the region & will not tolerate becoming behooved to China of all countries. They'll go nuclear before that happens. SK might have other thoughts but if Japan goes nuclear, they will too.

The issue with Vietnam was the US did not invade the North. If that had happened, the war would have ended long ago.

Anyway, Taiwan would open up the way to the Pacific for the Chinese. Even if there is Japan and the Philippines, the gap in the middle is too big. In fact, the Japanese islands in the way would become difficult to hold. Not to mention the fact that there's a possibility China will attempt to take many of the Japanese islands during such a war too.

Once Taiwan falls, it's gonna become very difficult for the US to protect SoKo. If SoKo falls, even a nuclear Japan won't be able to stop China. So it will entirely depend on how far the Chinese want to take things, that puts China on the frontfoot and the US on the backfoot. And that's how they will win the long game without fighting.

It's like no matter what Pakistan does, IOR will always remain India's sphere of influence. And Japan's tiny in comparison.

Being seen as unpredictable/irrational is something that Trump cultivates to use to his advantage. He has never actually made any decision in office that can be seen as irrational or not well thought-out.

In fact he's been the sanest, most level-headed POTUS this century. And he managed to stay that way while concurrently changing the status quo in several places toward America's advantage, Abraham Accords being the biggest example.

Trump is no fool. He won't get America into a type of war it cannot win, and with even the only possible reward being a simple continuation of the status quo.

He was actually never tested, because him being in office suited rivals.

His economic measures are irrational and can cause massive damage to the Chinese, that's why it's likely that the Chinese will behave during his presidency too.

I'm hoping Ian or Ivanka continue Trump's legacy in 2028 and 2032.

He'll do whatever it takes to deter China. And if deterrence fails, he'll do whatever necessary to indirectly support Taiwan (like Ukraine) using Japan as a conduit for supplies. He'd most likely threaten to block Malacca with his Navy and cut off China's energy & trade unless Beijing allows for supplies to come through to Taiwan.

None of that will work. Blocking sea trade is pointless. It's something people keep bringing up, but it's not realistically possible. It's supposed to be a wartime maneuver for "all shipping," not just ships headed towards one country.

The Democrats intend on militarily supporting Taiwan, 'cause that's the only thing that can deter China. Taiwan's seeking clarity on Trump's stance now.

Unless the US gets directly involved (which it likely won't), China will be confident that it can eventually grind down any opposition in Taiwan regardless of them being resupplied, so they'll probably oblige. Because the alternative (having oil & trade cut off indefinitely) would likely introduce a lot of societal instability in China that CCP can ill-afford in the long term. Even getting bogged down in conflict (remember, Taiwan is mountainous) will be preferred over that, as long as China is assured of eventual victory.

So a lot of the PLA's strength (and China's economy) will be eroded on the Taiwan war, which will leave them unable to pursue an all-out conflict with any bigger fish like Japan or India for the foreseeable future - in the meantime, their demography & post-war economic slump would leave them weaker.

That might be the best possible outcome, given everything China has already built up & is prepared for - and that can possibly be achieved without a single American having to die. Trump will consider it.

If China blockades Taiwan, the Chinese will be seen as the aggressors, and that will bring the US and Japan in. Blockades are a declaration of war.

Basically, if China or US want to avoid war, trade routes need to remain open.

The Chinese population figures are actually overstated to a fair degree. Their demographic problem is a lot worse than even they admit - plus they have a very unnatural population pyramid due to the forced 1-child policy which is not the case for Japan.

The problem is, the Chinese have decided to take on 3 major powers at the same time, which all require considerable manpower to beat militarily.

China's ability to pursue a robotic workforce might be severely hampered due to the sanctions placed on chip exports. China might be able to catch up to some extent with existing technology but they will fall behind more & more with each successive generation of computing.

Even so, we are still decades away from seeing massive ill-effects. Even if population decline started before Japan, the kids born then will still only be 20 years old today, and have another 30-40 years before they stop being productive, and their replacements don't exist. So the ill-effects will be see 20 years later, when these guys are 40 years old. But given their economic output and low wages, the Chinese were a growing population back then.

I'm sure they didn't realize Ukraine would turn out the way it did, but it's unlikely that demographics & timeframes did not play a part in their decision to move when they did.

If Ukraine could not be guaranteed as a neutral country, then they had to move to close the Bessarabian gap & anchor themselves to the Carpathians at some point anyway.

Putin is capable of looking at a chart and understanding what it means. In the event that NATO does decide to get involved (at least to grab the Western half of Ukraine to prevent Russia from taking it), he'd need manpower to push them out.

The longer he decided to wait, the less the manpower he (or his successor) would potentially have on hand. AND, perhaps more importantly - the less the percentage of ethnic Russians in the manpower he does end up getting. Which means less people willing to fight & die for him instead of for some regional warlord like Kadyrov, who could take the opportunity to declare independence or try something else.

Russians managed to see their worst fears (wrt mobilization) come to pass - all without actually having to fight NATO forces directly. That's a different story. They lost too many men for not all that much gained in return.

Putin would've wanted all of Ukraine & all of Moldova for the number of men he lost just to take 20% of Ukraine (half of which was already in defacto Russian control/influence before the war). The planning & intelligence groundwork (and geopolitical anticipation) of this war has been an utter disaster as far as Russia is concerned.

It was all just monumental levels of incompetence on the Russian side. Their army was too tiny and corruption had destroyed whatever was left. Their air force was completely useless for more than their first year too, and will remain partly useless for a few more years. All 'cause the Kremlin literally assumed Kiev will fall without a fight, so no pre-war preparations were carried out.

They started the war with 200k men along a 2000+ km front. India's facing war with Pakistan in a front third that size with 5 times that number and twice the armor alongside an air force that actually works as advertised.

It was only from the second year that the Russians got enough forces to take and hold land. Before that, they would take land and nobody would be there to relieve those forces to hold land, so they would have to withdraw only to fight for the same bit of land again.

 

[randomradio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1878215227587678516

They have a bunch of these ships, it's going to get really difficult for Taiwan.

 

[Parthu]

Anyway, Taiwan would open up the way to the Pacific for the Chinese. Even if there is Japan and the Philippines, the gap in the middle is too big. In fact, the Japanese islands in the way would become difficult to hold. Not to mention the fact that there's a possibility China will attempt to take many of the Japanese islands during such a war too.

But for the US, the space between the first & second chains is the most advantageous place to engage China. That environment would play entirely to the US' strengths, but not so much to the Chinese strength.

Engaging within the first island chain in a protracted war with China isn't going to end well for the US. There won't be enough political capital to keep up with the material & human losses that would entail. There would be no guarantee of victory. Even in WW2, by the time US took the decision to join, it was pretty much given that they'd win eventually - cuz nobody else could match their industrial output. They were producing as many aircraft as Germany & USSR combined. Today against China there's no such guarantee.

Plus, from a PR standpoint, it's better to make it seem as though China could only take Taiwan because the US didn't intervene, rather than run the risk of actually being beaten back by PLA, which would be a much worse look for the Americans.

Once Taiwan falls, it's gonna become very difficult for the US to protect SoKo. If SoKo falls, even a nuclear Japan won't be able to stop China. So it will entirely depend on how far the Chinese want to take things, that puts China on the frontfoot and the US on the backfoot. And that's how they will win the long game without fighting.

It's like no matter what Pakistan does, IOR will always remain India's sphere of influence. And Japan's tiny in comparison.

A change in status quo in the region is inevitable over the next decade or two.

It can't be that China was allowed to build itself up to incredible proportions industry-wise over several decades, with an unmatched level of being able to resupply their military with pretty much anything & everything they need for the kind of short-range conflict that they plan, and yet expect that this won't result in a change of status quo.

In fact most of the NATO arms production (even for the most basic things like ammo & fuzes) would grind to a halt if the supply chain isn't supported by Chinese inputs. There's no low-level industry left in the West anymore.

In terms of industrial output, the West essentially has to run a war economy just to match China's regular economy. If China kicks into war mode, it's all over. There'll be 100 CJ-10s for every 1 Tomahawk that US can deploy. There's no winning that war if you fight in China's backyard, playing to their strengths while having a logistics resupply route that has to span the whole Pacific.

He was actually never tested, because him being in office suited rivals.

His economic measures are irrational and can cause massive damage to the Chinese, that's why it's likely that the Chinese will behave during his presidency too.

Except Biden pretty much continued with all Trump-era measures against China. In fact he added so many more tariffs.

The Chinese know by now that adversarial relations with China are a bipartisan approach for the US Govt. They won't have anything to gain by waiting Trump out, except potentially making their economy even weaker (and the world's dependence on China lesser) if they wait till next decade.

I'm hoping Ian or Ivanka continue Trump's legacy in 2028 and 2032.

Who's Ian?

JD Vance will most likely be the candidate for 2028 - unless he falls out with Trump before then like happened with Pence.

None of that will work. Blocking sea trade is pointless. It's something people keep bringing up, but it's not realistically possible. It's supposed to be a wartime maneuver for "all shipping," not just ships headed towards one country.

Yeah - except Japan/SoKo can be resupplied by the US through the Pacific route if need be. It'll be more expensive, but that's what war is.

The threat of blockading Malacca, Sunda etc. will be used in order to get China to not blockade Taiwan in return. Which will keep the route open for ROC to be resupplied with material they need to keep fighting for longer.

But the aim of this resupply will just be to prolong the conflict & erode the cutting edge of China's military, preparing the ground for the next bout of hostilities that would take place between the 1st & 2nd island chains, or even in a multi-front setting across the Himalayas as well (if the West manages to cut us a deal good enough to get involved).

If China blockades Taiwan, the Chinese will be seen as the aggressors, and that will bring the US and Japan in. Blockades are a declaration of war.

Basically, if China or US want to avoid war, trade routes need to remain open.

Duh.

We're talking about what happens after the invasion of Taiwan already kicks off.

It was all just monumental levels of incompetence on the Russian side. Their army was too tiny and corruption had destroyed whatever was left. Their air force was completely useless for more than their first year too, and will remain partly useless for a few more years. All 'cause the Kremlin literally assumed Kiev will fall without a fight, so no pre-war preparations were carried out.

They started the war with 200k men along a 2000+ km front. India's facing war with Pakistan in a front third that size with 5 times that number and twice the armor alongside an air force that actually works as advertised.

It was only from the second year that the Russians got enough forces to take and hold land. Before that, they would take land and nobody would be there to relieve those forces to hold land, so they would have to withdraw only to fight for the same bit of land again.

No arguments there.

But this war was inevitable one way or the other. NATO wouldn't respect Russia's sphere of influence, which means Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to remain neutral, their democracy was already subverted. Russians had to come in militarily to keep their security interests protected.

And the longer they waited to do that, the more men they'd need - and the less men they'd have.

 

[randomradio]

But for the US, the space between the first & second chains is the most advantageous place to engage China. That environment would play entirely to the US' strengths, but not so much to the Chinese strength.

Engaging within the first island chain in a protracted war with China isn't going to end well for the US. There won't be enough political capital to keep up with the material & human losses that would entail. There would be no guarantee of victory. Even in WW2, by the time US took the decision to join, it was pretty much given that they'd win eventually - cuz nobody else could match their industrial output. They were producing as many aircraft as Germany & USSR combined. Today against China there's no such guarantee.

Plus, from a PR standpoint, it's better to make it seem as though China could only take Taiwan because the US didn't intervene, rather than run the risk of actually being beaten back by PLA, which would be a much worse look for the Americans.

The US has to make their stand at Taiwan, or worst case, they fight in open waters, where the US cannot attack China's mainland. Fighting in open waters means American allies have fallen.

A change in status quo in the region is inevitable over the next decade or two.

It can't be that China was allowed to build itself up to incredible proportions industry-wise over several decades, with an unmatched level of being able to resupply their military with pretty much anything & everything they need for the kind of short-range conflict that they plan, and yet expect that this won't result in a change of status quo.

In fact most of the NATO arms production (even for the most basic things like ammo & fuzes) would grind to a halt if the supply chain isn't supported by Chinese inputs. There's no low-level industry left in the West anymore.

In terms of industrial output, the West essentially has to run a war economy just to match China's regular economy. If China kicks into war mode, it's all over. There'll be 100 CJ-10s for every 1 Tomahawk that US can deploy. There's no winning that war if you fight in China's backyard, playing to their strengths while having a logistics resupply route that has to span the whole Pacific.

Hence the need to fight close to China, so all these production facilities can be reliably attacked.

I think the US would consider it a victory if the invasion fails and the US and allies are able to do significant damage to Chinese ports and ship production along with aircraft production even if the Chinese outbuild missiles. But it also means the US and allies need adequate pre-war stocks necessary to bring about that level of destruction, which is the aim. For example, LM is planning on producing 1000+ JASSMs a year. And Taiwan's already above 1000 a year for various designs.

PrSM is quite impressive, with Inc 2 capable of hitting many of China's ships and shipyards from Taiwan.

I suppose the idea is if 20000+ missiles and dozens of other bombers destroy 80% of the PLAN followed by their ports and shipyards, that will put an end to the Chinese threat for at least 40-50 years, at minimal or no cost to American shipyards.

Except Biden pretty much continued with all Trump-era measures against China. In fact he added so many more tariffs.

The Chinese know by now that adversarial relations with China are a bipartisan approach for the US Govt. They won't have anything to gain by waiting Trump out, except potentially making their economy even weaker (and the world's dependence on China lesser) if they wait till next decade.

Those tariffs are still too weak. Trump's planning to do far more damage from day 1. 35% flat rate above existing rates.

Who's Ian?

JD Vance will most likely be the candidate for 2028 - unless he falls out with Trump before then like happened with Pence.

Ian's my friend. I meant Don Jr.

I doubt Vance will be able to pull crowds like Ivanka or Don Jr., with Trump standing next to them, even more so if this presidency goes well for Trump.

Yeah - except Japan/SoKo can be resupplied by the US through the Pacific route if need be. It'll be more expensive, but that's what war is.

The threat of blockading Malacca, Sunda etc. will be used in order to get China to not blockade Taiwan in return. Which will keep the route open for ROC to be resupplied with material they need to keep fighting for longer.

But the aim of this resupply will just be to prolong the conflict & erode the cutting edge of China's military, preparing the ground for the next bout of hostilities that would take place between the 1st & 2nd island chains, or even in a multi-front setting across the Himalayas as well (if the West manages to cut us a deal good enough to get involved).

Blockading Malacca for all ships is impractical unless countries are at war. And China will get its supplies from Iran and Russia overland too. And they all have strategic reserves, so the blockade will only impact poorer nations.

Duh.

We're talking about what happens after the invasion of Taiwan already kicks off.

Then the discussion wouldn't make sense. Blockades are part of warfare by default.

No arguments there.

But this war was inevitable one way or the other. NATO wouldn't respect Russia's sphere of influence, which means Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to remain neutral, their democracy was already subverted. Russians had to come in militarily to keep their security interests protected.

And the longer they waited to do that, the more men they'd need - and the less men they'd have.

Had they not been incompetent, things would have been very different. I guess the Americans had planned for a long-term insurgency for Russia to deal with rather than this clusterfvck.

To make things worse, Russia wasn't a serious conventional military threat to NATO before the war, but in 5 years, they will be. And it's possible Europe will bankrupt itself trying to match the Russians over a 15-year period.

 

[Parthu]

The US has to make their stand at Taiwan, or worst case, they fight in open waters, where the US cannot attack China's mainland. Fighting in open waters means American allies have fallen.



Hence the need to fight close to China, so all these production facilities can be reliably attacked.

I think the US would consider it a victory if the invasion fails and the US and allies are able to do significant damage to Chinese ports and ship production along with aircraft production even if the Chinese outbuild missiles. But it also means the US and allies need adequate pre-war stocks necessary to bring about that level of destruction, which is the aim. For example, LM is planning on producing 1000+ JASSMs a year. And Taiwan's already above 1000 a year for various designs.

PrSM is quite impressive, with Inc 2 capable of hitting many of China's ships and shipyards from Taiwan.

I suppose the idea is if 20000+ missiles and dozens of other bombers destroy 80% of the PLAN followed by their ports and shipyards, that will put an end to the Chinese threat for at least 40-50 years, at minimal or no cost to American shipyards.

I don't think you're fully comprehending what it means for the US to directly go to war with China.

The long & short of it is that they can't. Look for yourself. The US/Allies aren't building up for war - they're building up for deterrence. There's a difference. If they want to actually fight an all-out war, targeting every factory in China that's capable of producing material for the war effort, you're talking about essentially de-industrializing the entire world. If you destroy low-end manufacturing, it would also destroy the high-end manufacturing that depends on those factories for inputs.

E.g. to produce an LRASM or PrSM, you need to produce over a hundred line items. Each of those items require a hundred items to produce them in turn - everything from screwdrivers & spanners to DRAM chips & the trolleys that move finished missiles from factory to packaging. The West doesn't produce any of that low end stuff. And yet the high-end manufacturing can't exist without it.

If you want the West to produce all that stuff domestically in a war with China (and even after the war), you're talking about driving the wages & living standards of Western society down to third world levels, and they still won't have enough people & enough factories. All so they can fight & die defending Taiwan?

It just doesn't work. It might make sense grand-strategy wise, but not politically. Even if attempted, it'll fail it an epic way that would make the Vietnam withdrawal seem like nothing. The President that would try that wouldn't last very long.

Yes, eventually the de-linking from China has to happen (West recognizes that now), but it's not doable within the Taiwan invasion timeframe. They need another decade at least. And they need to bring India on board properly, otherwise it'd be very difficult to realize even if given a decade.

Those tariffs are still too weak. Trump's planning to do far more damage from day 1. 35% flat rate above existing rates.

Trump wants to strike a deal, like he did the last time. The tariffs are leverage.

Trump gets his trade deal, China gets the win

China has suffered short-term pain from the trade war, but it stands to gain in the long term.

www.brookings.edu

This time, he might ask Xi for more - including certain security guarantees. It's all part of Peace through Strength. It's the 'deterrence' part I was talking about.

Blockading Malacca for all ships is impractical unless countries are at war. And China will get its supplies from Iran and Russia overland too. And they all have strategic reserves, so the blockade will only impact poorer nations.

The blockade will be a threat - but if all goes to plan, it won't have to happen. China gets to keep their seaborne trade, and in return they don't blockade Taiwan as they invade it. Which will allow ROC to be resupplied.

China needs the sea route more than anyone else. Overland imports won't cover the extent of their need, besides the CPEC/BRI routes to Pak & Iran (as well as the one to Myanmar) would be bombed if at all a blockade was in effect.

To make things worse, Russia wasn't a serious conventional military threat to NATO before the war, but in 5 years, they will be. And it's possible Europe will bankrupt itself trying to match the Russians over a 15-year period.

Europe is economically done. The ad-hoc energy sources they set up cannot be sustained in the long-term, energy prices remain highly elevated. It no longer makes sense to run industry in Europe.

Europe will have only two real options going forward if they want to get back to the way things were:

1) Patch up with Russia and go back to Russian gas.
2) Become completely behooved to the US (read: EU will die) and buy their LNG

Either way, EU as an independent entity may not last much longer. Because Option 1 would mean most of Eastern Europe would probably break away from them, and Option 2 would essentially make them a US vassal & nothing else.

 

[randomradio]

I don't think you're fully comprehending what it means for the US to directly go to war with China.

The long & short of it is that they can't. Look for yourself. The US/Allies aren't building up for war - they're building up for deterrence. There's a difference.

There's another possibility. Their stated goal may be deterrence. But I think their objective is to provoke China to attack so the US can destroy the PLAN when they are still weak.

My old opinion still stands today in that respect. I had opined that the sooner China attacks, the greater is their advantage due to the lack of sufficient F-35s, non-clearance of full capabilities and the non-existence of B-21s. A lot of their anti-China capabilities are still limited, including land-based systems. But the longer the Chinese take, the more dangerous the US becomes. And by 2030-32 or so, the US will be fully prepared. So the US and allies' goal is to buy time for the US to fully prepare. Then the US will maintain that advantage for the next two decades, giving enough time for new anti-China competitors to rise up as direct rivals; India, Vietnam and Indonesia.

But with current capabilities, the US can destroy PLAN.

If they want to actually fight an all-out war, targeting every factory in China that's capable of producing material for the war effort, you're talking about essentially de-industrializing the entire world. If you destroy low-end manufacturing, it would also destroy the high-end manufacturing that depends on those factories for inputs.

E.g. to produce an LRASM or PrSM, you need to produce over a hundred line items. Each of those items require a hundred items to produce them in turn - everything from screwdrivers & spanners to DRAM chips & the trolleys that move finished missiles from factory to packaging. The West doesn't produce any of that low end stuff. And yet the high-end manufacturing can't exist without it.

If you want the West to produce all that stuff domestically in a war with China (and even after the war), you're talking about driving the wages & living standards of Western society down to third world levels, and they still won't have enough people & enough factories. All so they can fight & die defending Taiwan?

It just doesn't work. It might make sense grand-strategy wise, but not politically. Even if attempted, it'll fail it an epic way that would make the Vietnam withdrawal seem like nothing. The President that would try that wouldn't last very long.

Yes, eventually the de-linking from China has to happen (West recognizes that now), but it's not doable within the Taiwan invasion timeframe. They need another decade at least. And they need to bring India on board properly, otherwise it'd be very difficult to realize even if given a decade.

As long their pre-war stocks are sufficient to deplete PLA's main capabilities and reserves, war production and post-war production become less important.

Things will get more expensive, but production won't end. Other Third World countries will take up the mantle and sell everything the West needs at higher prices. But while things get expensive, the US will prevent a bigger war later on and keeping China in check will help the First World continue to maintain their current lifestyle, although only a bit more poorer.

Trump wants to strike a deal, like he did the last time. The tariffs are leverage.

Trump gets his trade deal, China gets the win

China has suffered short-term pain from the trade war, but it stands to gain in the long term.

www.brookings.edu

This time, he might ask Xi for more - including certain security guarantees. It's all part of Peace through Strength. It's the 'deterrence' part I was talking about.

In the end it depends on what the Chinese find acceptable. And the ones who will decide to invade will be the Chinese as well.

Basically, as long as the Chinese decide to invade, Trump is very likely to defend. One thing Trump understands is the value of real estate. When he understands that the US will lose control of WESTPAC, he will come to teh same conclusion as the Democrats.

Anyway, there's bipartisan acknowledgement of the Chinese threat.

The blockade will be a threat - but if all goes to plan, it won't have to happen. China gets to keep their seaborne trade, and in return they don't blockade Taiwan as they invade it. Which will allow ROC to be resupplied.

China needs the sea route more than anyone else. Overland imports won't cover the extent of their need, besides the CPEC/BRI routes to Pak & Iran (as well as the one to Myanmar) would be bombed if at all a blockade was in effect.

You just said the countries will be at war?

Let me make it a bit more clear. If there's a blockade, it's 'cause countries are at war or will soon be at war. Or else there won't be a blockade.

Neither China nor the US can get away with a full-scale blockade. If China does it, they become the aggressor, if the US does it, they lose all international credibility and they become the aggressor. For example, the West knows which ships are carrying Russian crude, but stopping them means a declaration of war, so they have to let them go. A China-specific blockade at Malacca is impossible due to the number of ships and different flags.

Europe is economically done. The ad-hoc energy sources they set up cannot be sustained in the long-term, energy prices remain highly elevated. It no longer makes sense to run industry in Europe.

Europe will have only two real options going forward if they want to get back to the way things were:

1) Patch up with Russia and go back to Russian gas.
2) Become completely behooved to the US (read: EU will die) and buy their LNG

Either way, EU as an independent entity may not last much longer. Because Option 1 would mean most of Eastern Europe would probably break away from them, and Option 2 would essentially make them a US vassal & nothing else.

They probably went with the sanctions thinking the aftereffects will be immediate and that they can survive that period. India and Turkey breaking sanctions probably wasn't in their calculus.

They should have done this stupid sh!t at least after their renewable sector was fully established. The Germans should have kept their reactors too.

 

[Parthu]

There's another possibility. Their stated goal may be deterrence. But I think their objective is to provoke China to attack so the US can destroy the PLAN when they are still weak.

My old opinion still stands today in that respect. I had opined that the sooner China attacks, the greater is their advantage due to the lack of sufficient F-35s, non-clearance of full capabilities and the non-existence of B-21s. A lot of their anti-China capabilities are still limited, including land-based systems. But the longer the Chinese take, the more dangerous the US becomes. And by 2030-32 or so, the US will be fully prepared. So the US and allies' goal is to buy time for the US to fully prepare. Then the US will maintain that advantage for the next two decades, giving enough time for new anti-China competitors to rise up as direct rivals; India, Vietnam and Indonesia.

But with current capabilities, the US can destroy PLAN.

With regard to the kind of capabilities needed to fight a short-range conflict across the Taiwan Strait (or within the first island chain), PLAN is not weak anymore. In fact they can very likely obtain local superiority over the USN in that theatre - because the kind of assets US has don't really shine in this type of fighting.

USN's assets are too few & too expensive to replace. On the high seas, a Type-022 boat is not a threat to a Burke. But in the Taiwan Straits, it is a huge threat. And US cannot replace Burkes as quickly as China can replace 022s.

If US wants to take on China inside the first island chain, then they need to change their entire way of warfighting. There are plans to do this (cheaper assets in larger numbers, rather than more capable assets but fewer like now) but this will take a very long time to realize. They need to uproot & re-make the way their entire military industrial complex is structured.

Same for procuring assets like B-21 and NGAD in sufficient numbers, that too will take a lot of time.

If they engage China over Taiwan within this decade, they'd be fighting a very disadvantaged war. Which is why there won't be a guarantee of victory. And a defeat could be truly humiliating and would fracture the entire alliance structure & belief in US strength. There's just too much risk.

As long their pre-war stocks are sufficient to deplete PLA's main capabilities and reserves, war production and post-war production become less important.

Things will get more expensive, but production won't end. Other Third World countries will take up the mantle and sell everything the West needs at higher prices. But while things get expensive, the US will prevent a bigger war later on and keeping China in check will help the First World continue to maintain their current lifestyle, although only a bit more poorer.

That won't work - firstly, pre-war US stocks are already in a depleted state cuz everything was going to Ukraine & Israel (even from Pacific, the INDOPACOM Cdr. was actually complaining about it, see link below). And that is only considering a deterrence posture. If actually planning a war, they'd need way, way more than what they even had stocked pre-Ukraine war.

US support for Ukraine and Israel is eating into weapons stockpiles, Indo-Pacific commander says

The conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East are eating away at critical U.S. weapons stockpiles and could hamper the military's ability to respond to China should a conflict arise in the Indo-Pacific.

apnews.com

In short, pre-war stocks are simply not enough for an offensive war against China. Heck, the entire Western world's pre-war stocks weren't enough for a defensive war against even Russia, which is a barely industrialized country compared to China.

Plus, once a conflict over Taiwan starts, it would not be acceptable for Beijing to fold without giving it everything they've got - doesn't matter how long it takes or how much money or how many lives. This is more than a strategic necessity for China (like Ukraine is for Russia), this would be a question of national prestige. That's why I said it's like their Stalingrad.

So expecting to get PRC to fold with just whatever pre-war buildup can be done by the US before 2030 (or 2027) is not realistic.

In the end it depends on what the Chinese find acceptable. And the ones who will decide to invade will be the Chinese as well.

Basically, as long as the Chinese decide to invade, Trump is very likely to defend. One thing Trump understands is the value of real estate. When he understands that the US will lose control of WESTPAC, he will come to teh same conclusion as the Democrats.

Yeah he's more than likely to send supplies & weapons to Taiwan. But getting the US directly fighting China is a different ball game which he may not be ready to play, given the current realities.

You just said the countries will be at war?

Let me make it a bit more clear. If there's a blockade, it's 'cause countries are at war or will soon be at war. Or else there won't be a blockade.

Neither China nor the US can get away with a full-scale blockade. If China does it, they become the aggressor, if the US does it, they lose all international credibility and they become the aggressor. For example, the West knows which ships are carrying Russian crude, but stopping them means a declaration of war, so they have to let them go. A China-specific blockade at Malacca is impossible due to the number of ships and different flags.

Yeah - but war between China & Taiwan. Not between China & US.

US won't want to fight China due to ill-preparedness for this kind of war (all those decades of Russo-centricity has a price, this is it). China won't want to fight US due to possibility of a long war that cripples PRC economically & strategically.

Getting the Taiwan invasion over quickly would require China to blockade the island, but this will prevent US/Japan from resupplying Taiwan unless they decide to engage the PLAN ships enforcing the blockade. This would draw them into war with China.

So they could instead decide to pressure China to release the blockade by blockading Malacca in turn. This would only happen if China already blockaded Taiwan so they would be the aggressor regardless. The justification provided would be that they want PRC to lift the blockade on Taiwan so they can send humanitarian supplies (read: weapons).

But a blockade of Malacca would also draw the US into a war with China because that too is an act of war.

So what would be the way out? It would be what I said: China will not blockade Taiwan - and US/Japanese supplies of weapons & aid to the island would be allowed to continue, even if it makes PRC's job in Taiwan harder but with victory assured in the end. Why? Because that would be a preferred outcome compared to having to fight US/Japan, which would inevitably turn this into a long war - which China might still win, but at too great a cost.

On the other hand if China decides to wait till next decade or later, then they might not win at all. Long war or short. Because US would complete its planned Sino-centric build-out which can defeat PLA both within or outside the first island chain.

 

[randomradio]

With regard to the kind of capabilities needed to fight a short-range conflict across the Taiwan Strait (or within the first island chain), PLAN is not weak anymore. In fact they can very likely obtain local superiority over the USN in that theatre - because the kind of assets US has don't really shine in this type of fighting.

USN's assets are too few & too expensive to replace. On the high seas, a Type-022 boat is not a threat to a Burke. But in the Taiwan Straits, it is a huge threat. And US cannot replace Burkes as quickly as China can replace 022s.

If US wants to take on China inside the first island chain, then they need to change their entire way of warfighting. There are plans to do this (cheaper assets in larger numbers, rather than more capable assets but fewer like now) but this will take a very long time to realize. They need to uproot & re-make the way their entire military industrial complex is structured.

Same for procuring assets like B-21 and NGAD in sufficient numbers, that too will take a lot of time.

If they engage China over Taiwan within this decade, they'd be fighting a very disadvantaged war. Which is why there won't be a guarantee of victory. And a defeat could be truly humiliating and would fracture the entire alliance structure & belief in US strength. There's just too much risk.

PLAN is way behind today. The USN surface ships need not even show up, their SSN force will wipe out most of PLAN without a single scratch on them. Next up is the bomber + LRASM combo. The USN only need air denial at the bare minimum to pull this off.

The Chinese have limited to no defenses against such threats. They need quality SSNs and long range interceptors to counter them, which would explain the J-36.

CCP is assuming it can get a sizable force into Taiwan before all the big ships are damaged or sunk. If the PLA get a lodgment in Taiwan in the first few days, they will win, regardless of how badly the PLAN gets mauled after that.

The continued existence of Taiwan is an existential threat to China, both in terms of military and ideology. So it depends on what they are willing to risk. If they think losing most of the PLAN and shipyards is worth the price in exchange for taking Taiwan, they will pay it.

That won't work - firstly, pre-war US stocks are already in a depleted state cuz everything was going to Ukraine & Israel (even from Pacific, the INDOPACOM Cdr. was actually complaining about it, see link below). And that is only considering a deterrence posture. If actually planning a war, they'd need way, way more than what they even had stocked pre-Ukraine war.

US support for Ukraine and Israel is eating into weapons stockpiles, Indo-Pacific commander says

The conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East are eating away at critical U.S. weapons stockpiles and could hamper the military's ability to respond to China should a conflict arise in the Indo-Pacific.

apnews.com

In short, pre-war stocks are simply not enough for an offensive war against China. Heck, the entire Western world's pre-war stocks weren't enough for a defensive war against even Russia, which is a barely industrialized country compared to China.

Plus, once a conflict over Taiwan starts, it would not be acceptable for Beijing to fold without giving it everything they've got - doesn't matter how long it takes or how much money or how many lives. This is more than a strategic necessity for China (like Ukraine is for Russia), this would be a question of national prestige. That's why I said it's like their Stalingrad.

So expecting to get PRC to fold with just whatever pre-war buildup can be done by the US before 2030 (or 2027) is not realistic.

US pre-war stocks are massive. Even more so when you combine them with alliance stocks.

They are producing JASSMs at roughly 800-1000 a year, they want to get to 10000 in total. Their sea-baseed Tomahawk inventories are 4000-4500, and are setting up land-based Tomahawk and SM-6 batteries. This is followed by a massive number of PrSMs with range between 500-1000 km. Then a whole bunch of smaller missiles like Harpoon and NSM. So their missile inventory is already massive. At least close to 15000 today and will climb to 20000 over the next few years. Taiwan's will be something like 5000 as well. To put that into perspective, the Russians dropped 11500 missiles between Sept 2022 and 2024 in Ukr.

What they have sent to Ukr is peanuts. For example, the West's actual inventory is something like 20-30 million 155mm shells, but have sent Ukr only 4 million. SoKo's inventory alone is probably even more than that.

And the target is PLAN + shipyards. Enough to keep PLAN in check for 40+ years and prevent a Taiwanese invasion. Not destroy China as a whole.

Yeah he's more than likely to send supplies & weapons to Taiwan. But getting the US directly fighting China is a different ball game which he may not be ready to play, given the current realities.

The current reality is the US can defeat China within Trump's term and create an immortal legacy for himself, like Roosevelt. Or, if China takes Taiwan, he will go down in history as one of the worst presidents, for giving up on WESTPAC. Give him those two options and see for yourself what he will pick.

Yeah - but war between China & Taiwan. Not between China & US.

US won't want to fight China due to ill-preparedness for this kind of war (all those decades of Russo-centricity has a price, this is it). China won't want to fight US due to possibility of a long war that cripples PRC economically & strategically.

The US is capability-centric not Russo-centric. They can adapt to any enemy.

Getting the Taiwan invasion over quickly would require China to blockade the island, but this will prevent US/Japan from resupplying Taiwan unless they decide to engage the PLAN ships enforcing the blockade. This would draw them into war with China.

So they could instead decide to pressure China to release the blockade by blockading Malacca in turn. This would only happen if China already blockaded Taiwan so they would be the aggressor regardless. The justification provided would be that they want PRC to lift the blockade on Taiwan so they can send humanitarian supplies (read: weapons).

But a blockade of Malacca would also draw the US into a war with China because that too is an act of war.

So what would be the way out? It would be what I said: China will not blockade Taiwan - and US/Japanese supplies of weapons & aid to the island would be allowed to continue, even if it makes PRC's job in Taiwan harder but with victory assured in the end. Why? Because that would be a preferred outcome compared to having to fight US/Japan, which would inevitably turn this into a long war - which China might still win, but at too great a cost.

On the other hand if China decides to wait till next decade or later, then they might not win at all. Long war or short. Because US would complete its planned Sino-centric build-out which can defeat PLA both within or outside the first island chain.

You are basing your opinion around the notion that China can defeat the US in Taiwan, so there's no point in defending Taiwan. That Taiwan will fight on its own, will be defeated and become part of China and the US will do absolutely nothing to stop that.

Anyway, even if the US decides not to challenge the Chinese blockade of Taiwan, the plan is to build up stocks of food, fuel, and ammo inside Taiwan, 'cause even if the US enters the war, supplying Taiwan will become difficult during the fighting.

 

[Parthu]

PLAN is way behind today. The USN surface ships need not even show up, their SSN force will wipe out most of PLAN without a single scratch on them. Next up is the bomber + LRASM combo. The USN only need air denial at the bare minimum to pull this off.

SSNs can't shine in an environment like this. They're not meant for littoral operations.

In the deep seas (like between the first & second chains) US SSNs would wipe the floor with PLAN. But in the littorals, where PLAN is free to blast active sonar & fill the waters with sonobuoys? Nope. This is not the type of fighting hunter-killers were made for.

This is for ambush predators like SSKs - and even then attrition will be high. But thankfully for PLAN, they have loads of SSKs to throw at the fight.

The only way US subs can influence the fight is through stand-off strikes with cruise missiles. But for that they need to replenish missile numbers faster than China can. They can't.

The Chinese have limited to no defenses against such threats. They need quality SSNs and long range interceptors to counter them, which would explain the J-36.

Those assets aren't for Taiwan - they're for the fight that would happen between the 1st & 2nd chains, and ultimately going past the 2nd chain which is the final Chinese goal. They want to be able to do a Pearl Harbour on Guam, and then be able to do that at least twice a day (as many sorties as J-36 can put up) till US has to pull out of Guam.

CCP is assuming it can get a sizable force into Taiwan before all the big ships are damaged or sunk. If the PLA get a lodgment in Taiwan in the first few days, they will win, regardless of how badly the PLAN gets mauled after that.

The continued existence of Taiwan is an existential threat to China, both in terms of military and ideology. So it depends on what they are willing to risk. If they think losing most of the PLAN and shipyards is worth the price in exchange for taking Taiwan, they will pay it.

Yep.

US pre-war stocks are massive. Even more so when you combine them with alliance stocks.

They are producing JASSMs at roughly 800-1000 a year, they want to get to 10000 in total. Their sea-baseed Tomahawk inventories are 4000-4500, and are setting up land-based Tomahawk and SM-6 batteries. This is followed by a massive number of PrSMs with range between 500-1000 km. Then a whole bunch of smaller missiles like Harpoon and NSM. So their missile inventory is already massive. At least close to 15000 today and will climb to 20000 over the next few years. Taiwan's will be something like 5000 as well. To put that into perspective, the Russians dropped 11500 missiles between Sept 2022 and 2024 in Ukr.

What they have sent to Ukr is peanuts. For example, the West's actual inventory is something like 20-30 million 155mm shells, but have sent Ukr only 4 million. SoKo's inventory alone is probably even more than that.

And the target is PLAN + shipyards. Enough to keep PLAN in check for 40+ years and prevent a Taiwanese invasion. Not destroy China as a whole.

These numbers aren't even near enough. If you think 10-15k missiles are enough to take care of China, you're mistaken. You've said it yourself, Russians have expended that number themselves and all they could achieve is at best a stalemate against poor little agrarian Ukraine that's only being half-heartedly supported by the West in terms of supplies (and that's when the bulk of fighting is done by Artillery & Infantry, not missiles).

You need something between 300k and 500k missiles in total to address China definitively. Maybe more. And that too can be done only if you have all of them ready to go on Day 1 of hostilities, which means you should've been running a war economy for at least a couple years prior to that. That's not how things are. If you can only get to that number a few years into the war, you would still at best only delay China's eventual victory over Taiwan because in that time the Chinese would also be able to build out over three to four times that number.

Over 200 SAMs were expended just to shoot down Houthi drones & missiles.

Navy Just Revealed Tally Of Surface-To-Air Missiles Fired In Ongoing Red Sea Fight

Navy surface combatants have fired off hundreds of missiles and five-inch shells to repel Houthi drone and missile attacks.

www.twz.com

In a war with China, US stocks will be depleted in less than a few weeks to at best a couple months of fighting. After that it'll come down to industry vs industry. But like I said, after a war over Taiwan has already started, accepting defeat & letting go will no longer be an option for China. They'll dig in for the long haul - every single factory in China will be producing material for the war.

That will do two things. One, it'll make China's ability to resupply shoot through the roof & second, it'll take the bottom out from under most industry that exists in the West, which in one way or the other depends on these Chinese factories for industrial inputs. So Chinese production of low-end stuff (Artillery, missiles with basic chips etc.) will go up while Western production of low-end stuff will come down cuz they have to form a new supply chain & seek help from non-Allied countries.

The current reality is the US can defeat China within Trump's term and create an immortal legacy for himself, like Roosevelt. Or, if China takes Taiwan, he will go down in history as one of the worst presidents, for giving up on WESTPAC. Give him those two options and see for yourself what he will pick.

Like I said, the first option isn't viable. If China decides to start a Taiwan invasion, it would only be because they're prepared for a long war. The US isn't. Not yet. They need at least a decade more to re-map the supply chain & re-orient strategic focus to the Pacific from Europe.

Biden messed it all up when he decided to get involved in Ukraine to the extent he did. He should've left it to Europe to figure out as this was the price for gorging on Russian gas for all those years. That's what Trump would've done - he specifically warned Germany about NordStream and dependence on Russia for energy.

So the options are actually this:

1) Get into a war with China and then abandon it midway through because you're not prepared for a long war but the Chinese are.

OR

2) Erode their fighting edge & numbers, damage their economy through sanctions & buy time to build up your own war machine to eventually engage them in an environment more advantageous to your strengths, all without losing a single American in the meantime. All the while, saving face by saying the Chinese could only succeed because you didn't intervene. And you didn't intervene because you didn't want Americans to die fighting for a foreign country that the US doesn't have a formal Mutual Defence Agreement with.

The second option is both the smart one, and the one that Trump will find easier to sell to his base.

The US is capability-centric not Russo-centric. They can adapt to any enemy.

Yeah but only if given enough time. Fighting China is not like re-routing a CBG from the Med to Aden to fight off some Houthis and be back home before Sunday.

Because PRC is not an enemy like previous ones. They are deeply integrated with the US & Allied economies. If they engage in conflict before the de-linking is done, they'll be damaging themselves just as much as they damage the enemy. And then the enemy will damage them even more.

You are basing your opinion around the notion that China can defeat the US in Taiwan, so there's no point in defending Taiwan. That Taiwan will fight on its own, will be defeated and become part of China and the US will do absolutely nothing to stop that.

Anyway, even if the US decides not to challenge the Chinese blockade of Taiwan, the plan is to build up stocks of food, fuel, and ammo inside Taiwan, 'cause even if the US enters the war, supplying Taiwan will become difficult during the fighting.

Yeah, US will do it's darndest to support Taiwan & increase their ability to hold off the Chinese invasion for as long as possible, and then fight the PRC for as long as possible once the invasion does start.

But getting into a conflict with China directly isn't going to happen - not just yet. Because if they do, victory is not guaranteed.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Ok guys. The invasion is certain to happen anytime after 2027-28 closer to 2030 if we consider a buffer of a year or 2. Whatever shortfalls in the US armed forces they've a few years to make up for it .

As far as we're concerned we need to keep our eyes peeled for similar indications on the LAC in case the CCP desires to have a little match practice .

Hopefully they attempt a Taiwan before they begin their adventure out here or if they're feeling particularly adventurous they might even begin both these expeditions simultaneously or staggered with the one against Taiwan preceding the one against us.

As of now China's in the same state of hubris the Japanese military establishment was in the lead up to Pearl Harbor. And the US can't sit this out whatever the condition of its armed forces for if it abandons Taiwan which is what it would be if they don't come to the defence of Taiwan , irrespective how they coat their words & actions like sanctions or try to supply Taiwan with military aid etc , they immediately lose their influence in Asia followed by the rest of the world.

All those nations hostile to China including Japan & India immediately buy peace however bitter a pill it'd be to swallow , before contemplating what next . Oh just another thing before I forget , China'd co ordinate its invasion with Russia launching a renewed offensive in Ukraine , DPRK renewing its attempts to take RoK stopped in its tracks in 1954 & most likely Iran & its proxies will renew their war against the Gulf Sheikhdoms & their favourite enemy Israel.

Let's see which conflict the US prioritises.

 

[Rajput Lion]

It is most definitely a matter of not if but when....... . Till then USAF/USN better prepare and buckle hard

 

[randomradio]

SSNs can't shine in an environment like this. They're not meant for littoral operations.

In the deep seas (like between the first & second chains) US SSNs would wipe the floor with PLAN. But in the littorals, where PLAN is free to blast active sonar & fill the waters with sonobuoys? Nope. This is not the type of fighting hunter-killers were made for.

This is for ambush predators like SSKs - and even then attrition will be high. But thankfully for PLAN, they have loads of SSKs to throw at the fight.

The only way US subs can influence the fight is through stand-off strikes with cruise missiles. But for that they need to replenish missile numbers faster than China can. They can't.

USN SSNs are not restricted to the deep sea like older SSNs. In any case, SSNs don't have to operate in the Taiwan Strait, the naval battlefield will cover all three Chinese fleets from the SoKo coastline to the SCS. Plus Japan has SSKs too.

Those assets aren't for Taiwan - they're for the fight that would happen between the 1st & 2nd chains, and ultimately going past the 2nd chain which is the final Chinese goal. They want to be able to do a Pearl Harbour on Guam, and then be able to do that at least twice a day (as many sorties as J-36 can put up) till US has to pull out of Guam.

USN plans to operate carriers from 500-1000 km away from Taiwan. PLAN needs larger ships and SSNs.

These numbers aren't even near enough. If you think 10-15k missiles are enough to take care of China, you're mistaken. You've said it yourself, Russians have expended that number themselves and all they could achieve is at best a stalemate against poor little agrarian Ukraine that's only being half-heartedly supported by the West in terms of supplies (and that's when the bulk of fighting is done by Artillery & Infantry, not missiles).

You need something between 300k and 500k missiles in total to address China definitively. Maybe more. And that too can be done only if you have all of them ready to go on Day 1 of hostilities, which means you should've been running a war economy for at least a couple years prior to that. That's not how things are. If you can only get to that number a few years into the war, you would still at best only delay China's eventual victory over Taiwan because in that time the Chinese would also be able to build out over three to four times that number.

Over 200 SAMs were expended just to shoot down Houthi drones & missiles.

Navy Just Revealed Tally Of Surface-To-Air Missiles Fired In Ongoing Red Sea Fight

Navy surface combatants have fired off hundreds of missiles and five-inch shells to repel Houthi drone and missile attacks.

www.twz.com

In a war with China, US stocks will be depleted in less than a few weeks to at best a couple months of fighting. After that it'll come down to industry vs industry. But like I said, after a war over Taiwan has already started, accepting defeat & letting go will no longer be an option for China. They'll dig in for the long haul - every single factory in China will be producing material for the war.

That will do two things. One, it'll make China's ability to resupply shoot through the roof & second, it'll take the bottom out from under most industry that exists in the West, which in one way or the other depends on these Chinese factories for industrial inputs. So Chinese production of low-end stuff (Artillery, missiles with basic chips etc.) will go up while Western production of low-end stuff will come down cuz they have to form a new supply chain & seek help from non-Allied countries.

That's too much. We are talking about bringing down 80% of PLAN and all of its shipyards and ports. And it's not just missiles, there will be bombing too. The numbers are beyond enough for the goal. No one's actually doubting that the USN can take out the PLAN quite easily today. To attack all of China, they need B-21s in large numbers, not missiles.

You have overestimated the need for China supplies for military production. If the US wants to replenish their military stocks, they can do so without supplies from China. It's civilian production that's gonna take a hit. Overall production per year is $3T ever year, whereas military production is something like $100B or so per year. It's peanuts. And US losses will be relatively low today.

And China able to supply other things to themselves won't matter without PLAN being rebuilt and lost sailors replaced.

Like I said, the first option isn't viable. If China decides to start a Taiwan invasion, it would only be because they're prepared for a long war. The US isn't. Not yet. They need at least a decade more to re-map the supply chain & re-orient strategic focus to the Pacific from Europe.

Neither are prepared for a long war. All their munitions will be expended within a month or two.

Biden messed it all up when he decided to get involved in Ukraine to the extent he did. He should've left it to Europe to figure out as this was the price for gorging on Russian gas for all those years. That's what Trump would've done - he specifically warned Germany about NordStream and dependence on Russia for energy.

So the options are actually this:

1) Get into a war with China and then abandon it midway through because you're not prepared for a long war but the Chinese are.

OR

2) Erode their fighting edge & numbers, damage their economy through sanctions & buy time to build up your own war machine to eventually engage them in an environment more advantageous to your strengths, all without losing a single American in the meantime. All the while, saving face by saying the Chinese could only succeed because you didn't intervene. And you didn't intervene because you didn't want Americans to die fighting for a foreign country that the US doesn't have a formal Mutual Defence Agreement with.

The second option is both the smart one, and the one that Trump will find easier to sell to his base.

The US is better prepared to last longer against China. There's a reason why the US still calls China "near-peer."

Losing Taiwan means most of America's advantages are lost. Fighting from the Second Island Chain is a losing proposition for two reasons. One, it's too far, the US does not have home advantage. Taiwan helps alleviate that. Two, by the time China becomes a dominant force in WESTPAC, they would have achieved parity with the USN.

If Taiwan is lost, the US will lose both SoKo and Japan. It's very likely that China will use Taiwan as a springboard to attack undefensible Japanese islands, which will bring the US directly into conflict with China anyway. Plus NoKo could invade SoKo without US intervention. To protect both SoKo and Japan, the US needs Taiwan. That's how critical Taiwan is.

Yeah but only if given enough time. Fighting China is not like re-routing a CBG from the Med to Aden to fight off some Houthis and be back home before Sunday.

Because PRC is not an enemy like previous ones. They are deeply integrated with the US & Allied economies. If they engage in conflict before the de-linking is done, they'll be damaging themselves just as much as they damage the enemy. And then the enemy will damage them even more.

That doesn't matter. USN is not Russo-centric in particular. And China is nowhere near where they need to be to take on American CBGs. PLAN's main goal is sea denial, not sea control.

Yeah, US will do it's darndest to support Taiwan & increase their ability to hold off the Chinese invasion for as long as possible, and then fight the PRC for as long as possible once the invasion does start.

But getting into a conflict with China directly isn't going to happen - not just yet. Because if they do, victory is not guaranteed.

The question has always been what the Chinese are willing to pay for a victory over Taiwan. If the US fights China today, the PLAN's gonna disappear. But if China protects its infra, then it can rebuild quickly. But if the US enters the war more prepared, ie with a large fleet of B-21s, then the US can attack not just PLAN, but also China's infra deep within China. So the question has always been whether China is willing to give up on PLAN or lose even more by waiting, or take a few more decades to build up and become a peer before trying.

If the US defeats PLAN but loses the island, China wins. If the US defeats PLAN, takes out a lot of Chinese infra in the hinterland, and loses the island, China still wins. So the only loss for China is if they fail to take the island. All other material losses will just be rebuilt. Basically, whoever is left controlling the island in the end wins.

Anyway, while Trump's agenda isn't clear yet, there has always been bipartisan support for military involvement in Taiwan. But if the Chinese give Trump an opportunity to go down in history with the same name as Roosevelt, then he will take it.

 

[randomradio]

It is most definitely a matter of not if but when....... . Till then USAF/USN better prepare and buckle hard

US Army and MC too.

It's pretty easy for the Chinese to open up the SoKo front during their Taiwan invasion. The Chinese will have to distract the Americans in Israel as well, so that would have to involve Iran. A new Ukr-Russian war cannot be discounted too. All three can serve as major distractions.

New theaters are available today. There's North and West Africa. Can't dismiss a Venezuelan attack on Guyana as well. Armenia is expecting a full-scale war with Azerbaijan in a few years. All these countries will be ready for war before 2030.

 

[Parthu]

USN SSNs are not restricted to the deep sea like older SSNs. In any case, SSNs don't have to operate in the Taiwan Strait, the naval battlefield will cover all three Chinese fleets from the SoKo coastline to the SCS. Plus Japan has SSKs too.

That just means they are capable of shallow-water operation so can easily deploy & retrieve SEAL teams. That doesn't mean they can move freely in the backyard of a peer or near-peer opponent in an all-out war. SSNs, no matter who's they are, aren't meant for this kind of environment.

Japanese aren't going to engage China unless US is too, but their fleet is not designed for stopping/rolling back a Taiwan invasion either. Rather it's to be ambush predators along the first island chain so that PLAN is unable to access the waters beyond.

That's too much. We are talking about bringing down 80% of PLAN and all of its shipyards and ports. And it's not just missiles, there will be bombing too. The numbers are beyond enough for the goal. No one's actually doubting that the USN can take out the PLAN quite easily today. To attack all of China, they need B-21s in large numbers, not missiles.

That's actually a very conservative estimate of numbers needed. Israel actually dropped over 70,000 tons of explosive ordnance (of all kinds, missiles, artillery, bombs) in Gaza alone since Oct 7, 2023. At around 500kg per missile, that's about the equivalent of 140k LRASMs.

And that's before you consider China's ability to rebuild facilities lost in the opening stages, which Hamas really can't.

Of course, all the ordnance to be expended on China won't be in the form of guided cruise missiles, but a significant amount has to be. Because of the standoff ranges needed & the current lack of sufficient number of survivable penetrating air assets that can carry meaningful payloads over long distance (because closer air bases like Okinawa will be under constant attack by PLARF missiles & their sortie rate will plummet).

USAF wants a minimum of 100+ B-21s and 200-400+ PCAs, supported by over a thousand CCAs under NGAD in order to do this job effectively.

Currently, they only have 19 B-2s. The rest of the long-range assets (B-1, B-52) aren't survivable against the kind of IADS China has. F-35, F-22 are survivable but lack the range to operate from the standoff distance that USAF feels will be necessary, as basing them closer would mean their facilities get wiped out fairly quickly.

So they're fine for deterrence & opening stages of conflict, but not nearly enough for all-out war.

You have overestimated the need for China supplies for military production. If the US wants to replenish their military stocks, they can do so without supplies from China. It's civilian production that's gonna take a hit. Overall production per year is $3T ever year, whereas military production is something like $100B or so per year. It's peanuts. And US losses will be relatively low today.

The basics of industry are the same for everything, military or civilian. Whether you're making a bulldozer or a tank, you need the same nuts, bolts, spanners & bushings. It's the low-end stuff for which West needs a whole new supply chain to be set up, and then ramped up.

But the Chinese will have it all from Day 1.

And China able to supply other things to themselves won't matter without PLAN being rebuilt and lost sailors replaced.

It doesn't take particularly long or a lot of infrastructure to make short-range landing craft, they don't need 052Ds to take Taiwan. CCP isn't shy of conscripting people either.

Neither are prepared for a long war. All their munitions will be expended within a month or two.

Yeah but China will be more ready to replenish, as they'd have no choice but continue the war after they've taken the decision to start it.

The US is better prepared to last longer against China. There's a reason why the US still calls China "near-peer."

Near peer is an overall assessment of existing military capabilities. It doesn't take other aspects like economic or industrial capacities into account. For example, US considers both Russia & China as near-peer. Even though the latter's industrial capabilities for large-scale production of war stuffs is several orders of magnitude greater than the former.

Losing Taiwan means most of America's advantages are lost. Fighting from the Second Island Chain is a losing proposition for two reasons. One, it's too far, the US does not have home advantage. Taiwan helps alleviate that. Two, by the time China becomes a dominant force in WESTPAC, they would have achieved parity with the USN.

If Taiwan is lost, the US will lose both SoKo and Japan. It's very likely that China will use Taiwan as a springboard to attack undefensible Japanese islands, which will bring the US directly into conflict with China anyway. Plus NoKo could invade SoKo without US intervention. To protect both SoKo and Japan, the US needs Taiwan. That's how critical Taiwan is.

Taiwan is not part of US ORBAT. Japan & SoKo are. To resupply SoKo, all they need is Japan.

They just need to ensure Taiwan doesn't become part of PLA's ORBAT is all. Even if it does, it would only complicate matters by opening a new front, but in doing so, it would also force the PLAN to engage US in a type of warfighting that even existing American & Allied assets are well-suited for.

So a loss of Taiwan would be a setback for sure, but not really the be-all, end-all it's made out to be. But of course, they won't openly say that for obvious reasons as they want the US Govt to do everything necessary to ensure PRC is deterred from attempting an invasion in the first place.

The question has always been what the Chinese are willing to pay for a victory over Taiwan.

If they already made the move to start the invasion? In that case, the answer is everything.

If they start their War of Reunification, deciding to take the L after the initial round of US strikes (which would also be accompanied by PLARF attacks on all US bases within reach) would no longer be an option. They'd go for general mobilization of the entire country before they take that L.

Heck, the Russians went as far as to recruit from prisons even when they weren't even fighting the US/NATO directly.

If the US fights China today, the PLAN's gonna disappear. But if China protects its infra, then it can rebuild quickly. But if the US enters the war more prepared, ie with a large fleet of B-21s, then the US can attack not just PLAN, but also China's infra deep within China.

Exactly. Which is why they'll make their move before the US is fully prepared. If they wait another decade, US might actually be able to land reinforcements on Taiwan itself with cheap, replaceable assets like LSM and dislodge even established Chinese beach heads.

Navy Now Seeking Commercial Ship Design To Propel Its Long-Delayed Medium Landing Ship Program Forward

The Navy halted the Medium Landing Ship effort last month after high cost estimates and is now seeking commercial vessel designs to move Marines in a Pacific fight.

www.twz.com

So the question has always been whether China is willing to give up on PLAN or lose even more by waiting, or take a few more decades to build up and become a peer before trying.

Except it's clear now that they'll probably never really become a peer to the US. Until even 2021, the Chinese were confident that they can eventually match or exceed the US GDP. But by now it's clear that this will probably never happen - certainly not within the lifetime of the current generation of leadership.

In fact the gap might actually increase if US continues near-shoring/friend-shoring & turns up the tariffs & sanctions. By end of decade, it's possible that US GDP growth rate will actually be higher than China's, together with having a larger base to grow from.

PRC is entering a twilight moment. It's gonna be now or never if they want to take Taiwan.

If the US defeats PLAN but loses the island, China wins. If the US defeats PLAN, takes out a lot of Chinese infra in the hinterland, and loses the island, China still wins. So the only loss for China is if they fail to take the island. All other material losses will just be rebuilt. Basically, whoever is left controlling the island in the end wins.

Agreed.

That's why I said once the invasion does start, there won't be an upper limit to what the Chinese will do to ensure they don't lose.

Anyway, while Trump's agenda isn't clear yet, there has always been bipartisan support for military involvement in Taiwan. But if the Chinese give Trump an opportunity to go down in history with the same name as Roosevelt, then he will take it.

If he's presented the same options & opportunities that Roosevelt was given, then sure. But that won't be the case.

For one, FDR had the world's factory in his pocket. But Trump will have to be fighting the world's factory.

 

[randomradio]

That just means they are capable of shallow-water operation so can easily deploy & retrieve SEAL teams. That doesn't mean they can move freely in the backyard of a peer or near-peer opponent in an all-out war. SSNs, no matter who's they are, aren't meant for this kind of environment.

Technology's changed a lot. Yasen-M's silent mode takes it up to 28 knots for example. New SSNs are capable of littoral operations.

but their fleet is not designed for stopping/rolling back a Taiwan invasion either. Rather it's to be ambush predators along the first island chain so that PLAN is unable to access the waters beyond.

Why?

That's actually a very conservative estimate of numbers needed. Israel actually dropped over 70,000 tons of explosive ordnance (of all kinds, missiles, artillery, bombs) in Gaza alone since Oct 7, 2023. At around 500kg per missile, that's about the equivalent of 140k LRASMs.

And that's before you consider China's ability to rebuild facilities lost in the opening stages, which Hamas really can't.

Of course, all the ordnance to be expended on China won't be in the form of guided cruise missiles, but a significant amount has to be. Because of the standoff ranges needed & the current lack of sufficient number of survivable penetrating air assets that can carry meaningful payloads over long distance (because closer air bases like Okinawa will be under constant attack by PLARF missiles & their sortie rate will plummet).

USAF wants a minimum of 100+ B-21s and 200-400+ PCAs, supported by over a thousand CCAs under NGAD in order to do this job effectively.

Currently, they only have 19 B-2s. The rest of the long-range assets (B-1, B-52) aren't survivable against the kind of IADS China has. F-35, F-22 are survivable but lack the range to operate from the standoff distance that USAF feels will be necessary, as basing them closer would mean their facilities get wiped out fairly quickly.

So they're fine for deterrence & opening stages of conflict, but not nearly enough for all-out war.

An anti-infantry bombing campaign is very different from an anti-shipping or anti-infra campaign. For the former, you need a lot of bombs. Not as much for the latter 'cause of the advanced weapons involved. That's why ship-killers carry just 8-16 AShMs.

USAF's 100+ B-21s and 200 NGADs are also timed to deal with a Chinese force that's far bigger and more advanced than today. And as I said, they don't need to blow up China, just 400 PLAN ships and a handful of ports and shipyards. The US have excess capability for that.

The basics of industry are the same for everything, military or civilian. Whether you're making a bulldozer or a tank, you need the same nuts, bolts, spanners & bushings. It's the low-end stuff for which West needs a whole new supply chain to be set up, and then ramped up.

But the Chinese will have it all from Day 1.

The West also has all that.

Among the top 10 in the world today, only 3 are Chinese.

https://www.pandafastener.com/2023-top10-fastener-manufacturer-in-the-world.html

It doesn't take particularly long or a lot of infrastructure to make short-range landing craft, they don't need 052Ds to take Taiwan. CCP isn't shy of conscripting people either.

Yes, they do. Who else is gonna provide area defense?

Near peer is an overall assessment of existing military capabilities. It doesn't take other aspects like economic or industrial capacities into account. For example, US considers both Russia & China as near-peer. Even though the latter's industrial capabilities for large-scale production of war stuffs is several orders of magnitude greater than the former.

Not true. Although China's industry is big, most of it's useless for the purpose of war. US military production is very impressive, and can be scaled up in many areas. For example, they can manufacture 400 F-35s a year if necessary. At the current rate of production, China needs 20 years to catch up to the USN. If the USN increase their production by just 20-30%, the Chinese will likely never catch up. And if the USN decides to push retirement dates of ships and subs further, the distance will get much worse for the Chinese.

Taiwan is not part of US ORBAT. Japan & SoKo are. To resupply SoKo, all they need is Japan.

They just need to ensure Taiwan doesn't become part of PLA's ORBAT is all. Even if it does, it would only complicate matters by opening a new front, but in doing so, it would also force the PLAN to engage US in a type of warfighting that even existing American & Allied assets are well-suited for.

So a loss of Taiwan would be a setback for sure, but not really the be-all, end-all it's made out to be. But of course, they won't openly say that for obvious reasons as they want the US Govt to do everything necessary to ensure PRC is deterred from attempting an invasion in the first place.

Without Taiwan, the seas will be highly contested because the PLAN can move ships from other 2 fleets to the north. Right now, Taiwan divides PLAN into two. With Taiwan gone, the entire area will belong to PLAN.

If they already made the move to start the invasion? In that case, the answer is everything.

If they start their War of Reunification, deciding to take the L after the initial round of US strikes (which would also be accompanied by PLARF attacks on all US bases within reach) would no longer be an option. They'd go for general mobilization of the entire country before they take that L.

Heck, the Russians went as far as to recruit from prisons even when they weren't even fighting the US/NATO directly.

You are arguing my point. That's what I'm saying too. Which makes a potential war with Taiwan a big one which will force the US to enter, and that will force Trump to fight.

Hell, the US (even Japan) will start sending troops over to Taiwan the minute China starts preparing for an invasion. If US presence in Taiwan doesn't serve as a deterrence, they are in for a fight.

Exactly. Which is why they'll make their move before the US is fully prepared. If they wait another decade, US might actually be able to land reinforcements on Taiwan itself with cheap, replaceable assets like LSM and dislodge even established Chinese beach heads.

Navy Now Seeking Commercial Ship Design To Propel Its Long-Delayed Medium Landing Ship Program Forward

The Navy halted the Medium Landing Ship effort last month after high cost estimates and is now seeking commercial vessel designs to move Marines in a Pacific fight.

www.twz.com

Yes. My point exactly. So this is why the Trump era is the best time for the Chinese to attack, and the best time for Trump to pretend to be the next Roosevelt. If the Chinese wait, the next opportunity is in the 2040s, but by then Taiwan would become an even harder nut to crack, the effects of population implosion will have become visible, and the rise of competing powers like India.

Except it's clear now that they'll probably never really become a peer to the US. Until even 2021, the Chinese were confident that they can eventually match or exceed the US GDP. But by now it's clear that this will probably never happen - certainly not within the lifetime of the current generation of leadership.

In fact the gap might actually increase if US continues near-shoring/friend-shoring & turns up the tariffs & sanctions. By end of decade, it's possible that US GDP growth rate will actually be higher than China's, together with having a larger base to grow from.

PRC is entering a twilight moment. It's gonna be now or never if they want to take Taiwan.

PRC is 15 years away from becoming a peer. You don't need the same GDP, you need a similar-sized military to become a peer even if your GDP is much smaller.

If he's presented the same options & opportunities that Roosevelt was given, then sure. But that won't be the case.

For one, FDR had the world's factory in his pocket. But Trump will have to be fighting the world's factory.

Er... No. That's not how this works. This is an air and navy-led war for a short period of time. You are confused between what Taiwan War will be and a WW2.

And the US has a lot of war production.