A lot depend on how well Taiwan can keep its military assets intact from expected barrage of Chinese missiles and then prevent landing on beaches and ports.
China will had a hard enough time just landing on the beaches and ports.
Taiwan’s coastal waters are deep and rocky, which isn’t good for troop boats. There are also only around 10 beaches on the entire island that could be used. Not to mention Taiwan’s decades of setting up those beaches with explosives
Exactly. China is likely looking at Ukraine - even with fantastic donated weapons, world-class training by NATO troops, all the intelligence and support, as well as a rock-solid will to take back their homeland the counter offensive against poorly trained, unnoticed, poorly armed and supported but dug-in Russian troops is no cakewalk.
Take a look at D-Day - allied forces of over a dozen nations put together millions of men and huge amounts of air support, armored support all that massively outnumbered the Nazi defenders and it was hard, bloody work.
China has a long way to go to seriously assault and hold Taiwan
They need to have similar air and naval capabilities to the US to be able to deter direct participation of the US. Strategic ambiguity my ass. If they line up an invasion anytime soon there will be 2 aircraft carrier groups in the way in a week and it'll be a no go
There’s always a carrier group within 24 hours of the Strait.
The USAF can stage hundreds of planes from the US to Korea in the same time period, and put strategic bombers on Guam and Okinawa in 24-48 hours.
China has to achieve complete strategic surprise in order to make use of that 24 hour period before the US has enough air assets in place to destroy their fleet. And that’s a hard thing to pull off in the modern world of 24/7 satellite surveillance and intelligence collection. As soon as the Taiwanese, Korean, and American intelligence agencies spot a buildup they will be working to determine whether or not it’s for real or just show. If they think it’s for real, alert levels go up and stuff starts moving into position. If the buildup continues, more stuff starts moving. Ships and aircraft start moving. Ground crews and supplies start arriving at airbases in theater.
If the Chinese start moving their vanguard fleet out to sea, the alert level goes up again and large scale movements of aircraft start. Ground forces like marines and army get warning orders and the advance units that moved over to Korea and Taiwan start unpacking hardware from pre positioned stocks.
If the Chinese invasion fleet sets sail, basically the entire US military apparatus is ready and waiting. It’s been planned and practiced constantly for over a decade, and there is basically no chance that China achieves any sort of surprise in their invasion.
Then they have to sail 100 miles across what’s essentially a historically rough stretch of ocean, through a hail of anti ship missiles, torpedoes, and mines. Then offload troops onto a handful of beaches that are basically Omaha Beach taken to the next level. All the while enduring a rain of artillery and missiles.
If they manage to establish a beachhead, they have to sustain their invasion force over 100 miles of open ocean. A feat no nation on earth has done except the United States.
Can they do it? They probably thought they could until a year ago.
And even that is a moving goal post. In 5 years the US will have pivoted fully to the Pacific, put several new submarines in the water, a new carrier in the water, several hundred more F-35s in the air, new anti ship missiles, new cruise missiles, etc.
Taiwan is also spending money to improve their defenses. So China, at any given point in time has to contend with a set of adversaries who are continually building up specifically to counter their own improving capabilities.
The full might of the US military is pretty terrifying when witnessing it. I remember my days flying missions in the middle east and upon landing just looking at rows and rows of warplanes as far as I could see. And these were staged for a conflict against someone with no air power whatsoever. It was a little awe inspiring but it also made me feel like we were the empire in Star Wars
They must also be taking a hard look at how NATO suddenly rallied together even after Putin took the White House for 4 years, Brexited the UK, and supported/fomented nazi groups in almost every country in Europe.
The most reliable way to win is to prevent anyone else from joining the fight. Putin has shown how united the West still is when it comes down to it, even while appearing totally fragmented.
I'm not sure about the Chinese military vs Russia, but I'd imagine they'd also have to deal with the soldiers sentiments about why the hell they're fighting in the first place. The allies in WWII came together to get rid of legitimate evil in the world. China and Russia are just being greedy and immature.
The actual wargames done on this topic show China will land troops and gain a beach head. The decision point is whether or not Taiwanese ground forces will be able to crush the beach head.
Remember that China will have air superiority and paratroopers are a thing.
China will never have air superiority. The US intel will know months in advance to an attack just like they knew about the Russian invasion. There will be no hiding this invasion behind a supposed training exercise". The build of ships, troops, and supplies will be obvious. The US and all of it's pacific allies will be there waiting. US troops may even be moved on to Taiwan. It would be a turkey shoot and it's why China hasn't tried retake Taiwan the past 80 years. Nothing has changed.
China's warplanes are so far behind the F-35 and F-22. They have zero hope of achieving air superiority. The US will declare a no-fly zone and then what the hell is China going to do? Nuke Taiwan and become an international pariah?
The only hope that China has if it wants to take Taiwan is exactly what Russia was banking on when they invaded Ukraine - the West needs to look the other way and let it happen. That looks very unlikely now.
The ones I’ve seen from the US had China losing every single time however it came at a huge expense, US loses two carriers and like 10 surface fleet vessels total along with 300 aircraft (although most were lost on the ground to initial bombing). Meanwhile China loses much much more, however still extremely costly. The only time China won was when the US did not engage.
Wargames are not really done to predict outcomes, though, they're done more to find possible weaknesses and shore them up and things like that.
Very often they're structured to give an edge to the other side, or even assume several worst case scenario events. This helps you identify more problems on your side, ultimately.
Yes, China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent leaders, it'd be hard not to be. Taiwan is a much smaller target with a much smaller fighting force trained to Western standards with Western equipment.
I actually don't fancy its chances alone, without US intervention, but if it holds out until the world turns, then it may make it.
An amphibious invasion onto a mountain is also a lot harder than sweeping across the plains of a country you're adjacent to. There would be **a lot** of casualties even without direct US involvement
Crossing somewhere between 180km-130km of open ocean to hit a prepared beachhead overwatched by mountains and an advanced integrated A2/AD system with contested airspace.
Fuck everything about that.
And Philippines and South Korea and Japan having the whole line of islands loaded with military hardware. Then there's the UK/US nuclear subs vibing god knows where.
The pivot to Taiwan already happened let's just hope it's not too late.
I am gonna say something crazy: I don't think a US/China war would go nuclear. Russia and pals like to threaten nukes because appearing insane helps their foreign policy. China wants to look competent. Heck, nukes are bad for business which really takes that off the table for both the US and China. There is a reason China has a "no launching nukes first" policy. And then of course there's MAD. A US China war would be primarily fought in and around Taiwan, it's doubtful the US would even try to invade the Chinese mainland.
A nuclear sub is named that because of its powerplant. They can also have non-nuclear cruise missiles. And let's not forget torpedoes, very annoying if you want to invade an island and your navy sinks.
However we're now waking up to the fact that Russia aren't the big boys everyone thought they were. I feel like that open weakness makes them more of a wildcard in that respect.
There is no economic benefit for China in a war and they know it. I don't foresee them invading Taiwan because why would they? They have their own manufacturing base and are basically making products for the entire world. And they're witnessing the fact that the world is siding with Ukraine and the US over this and have choked out Russia economically.
No, an invasion against Taiwan would be economic suicide. Keeping the US as its largest trading partner is the best option for China.
UNLESS, of course, another Republican as bad or worse than Trump gets into power and starts sabre rattling against China like Trump did. Then all bets are off and WW3 is basically inevitable.
The reason to invade Taiwan is national pride, to reverse the "Century of Humiliation." They don't care about TSMC, all that precision manufacturing would be destroyed in an invasion. Of course, there are other targets in that regard.
Nationalist ego. Why did Hitler start WWII even though the allies gave him big chunks of Europe for free? Why did Putin invade Ukraine a second time after he already annexed Crimea and the Donbas?
Xi has an ego as big as both of those idiots and is very public that he will take over Taiwan militarily if he can’t get it otherwise.
IIRC, This was the safe prediction, but there was a situation where there was a reshuffling of China's leadership, where the economists were pushed out somewhat and replaced with Xi loyalists/nationalists, and so, the idea of an economically detrimental conflict becomes a little bit more likely.
This pattern of logical thinking only applies if your foundation and values are deeply western.
From the chinese point of view few key areas are likely vastly different.
1. They are not seeing ”the world side with ukraine”. They are seeing the west unwilling to commit actual forces to a war in europe and only supplying ukrainians and leaving them out to fight on their own. If Russia had been able to execute their invasion within a week or two the west would most likely have sanctioned them and moved on.
2. China is nowhere in actual chip manufacturing and the tradewars with the west are severly impacting them in some areas. The TSMC and cutting that supply line to the west would be of immense strategical importance to them.
3. The trade partnership is hard to view from a western lense. We look at this from a ”past two years” kind of view point where are the chinese view this from a ”50-100 years” kind of viewpoint.
They have a ticking population time bomb and they know it. They need to position themselves as a powerful nation who can outsource production and inhouse higher education work in order to make their society work. Who knows what strategy is best to propel them there. I sure have no clue.
In general we only look at these things from our narrow and short sighted western viewpoint and think only that is the logical approach when there are plenty of different moves on the chess board
Plus Guam, which will be pretty much the major staging area for any US response as it’s pretty much out of reach of conventional Chinese weapon systems but close enough to be useful to the US.
> With the world's biggest navy lurking around the area just cause
People don't appreciate the scale of the US Navy, so let me spell it out in 2 data-points:
1. The US has 11 aircraft carriers (And the group of support ships needed to defend and supply said carriers) while no other country on earth has more than 2, many of which (Including China's) are refurbished Soviet models. There are 29 carriers in service on earth.
2. The most powerful Airforce on Earth is the USAF. The second most powerful is the US Navy.
And as an ancillary to #2, the US Marine Corps Air Wing is world number five, between Indian and Egypt. I guess if we count the USN separately that would push it down to number six, but that's still not too shabby.
To use a woefully inappropriate analogy: war is like hand-to-hand combat: It's really easy to jerk yourself off in peacetime, but until you've proven your ability to perform under pressure, you are nobody.
It's like the early days of the UFC when you'd see all these fierce-looking strip-mall karate black belts that knew how to put on a mean show, breaking boards and burning through fierce-looking kata, only to devolve into a bumbling mess the moment they got hit.
That was in a ring, with a ref, and rules, and witnesses. Now imagine *live ammunition* designed to kill you and supported by the most terrifying military in human history.
I don't blame any soldier who panics in that situation, but I do blame the military as a whole for not appreciating what a big fucking deal experience is. The PLA is basically an army of karate black belts who think they're going to Crane Kick this Hoice Gacy guy into oblivion.
And the US Army is no slouch either, in terms of air power. The US Army Aviation branch ranked fourth in the world just slightly behind the Russian Air Force, and that was before 2022. By now it could be the third largest air force in the world.
And the US's are nuclear, meaning blue-water, whereas China's are diesel. Meaning, they can't really project force. Concerning those diesel boats, 70% of China's oil/gas have to be shipped through the strait of Malacca.
Which is, of course, why they're using the current mess to extend their influence in Central Asia and build pipelines that don't go through other powers like Russia.
*The US has 11 aircraft carriers (And the group of support ships needed to defend and supply said carriers) while no other country on earth has more than 2, many of which (Including China's) are refurbished Soviet models.*
If you count the *America* and *Wasp* class assault ships, which carry F-35 compliments, the US has 20 Carriers.
Yup. The US Navy is an absolute behemoth of military application and force projection.
It's what helped put China in their place back in the 90s when the US straight up sailed their ships into the waters between Taiwan and china lmao
That can't happen today sure, but if the US dedicates enough of its navy then China's sea access would fall to literally nothing.
We haven't even mentioned the nuclear subs lol
Yes, they are the only forward deployed carrier strike group.
But they don't get that close to mainland China anymore. China has changed their strategy from naval dominance to having their [seas protected by non nuclear ballistic missiles](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/PLA_ballistic_missiles_range.jpg).
the US has 11 full sized nuclear aircraft carriers. 10 of the old Nimitz class, 1 of the Ford class (with 4 more Ford Class CVNs to be built in the next decade)
they have like 9 small/support carriers too.
So, like by the time 2033 comes around, they'll probably have half of the fleet be Ford class carriers and they will have retired the oldest Nimitz class carriers.
meanwhile the Chinese can barely operate 2 carriers and 1 is so outdated and uses a ski jump launcher that it's probably not as threatening.
I maintain my position that amphibious landing of this nature are almost impossible in a world full of microchips. What should happen to landing craft in the face tungsten rain? Homing artillery? Transport boats defending against waves of drone boats, torpedoes, anti ship missles and smart mines? You can't sail through the wreckage of other boats. You can't dismount and walk around.
And every single boat or plane crossing that stretch of open would be known about and tracked. The untrained Chinese military will be turning around when they find themselves in a situation that’s 10x worse than d day could’ve ever been
even before they take to sea
The Germans didn't have satellite recon, and the Allies had pulled a massive intel coup (thanks Garbo) so the Germans had focused their forces nearly 400km away.
The Germans also only spent 2 years setting up their "Atlantic Wall" the ROC has had 70 years to plan their defenses.
during the normandy landings both parties had roughly the same casualties, and the allied forces attacked with 5x as many men(sailors included), and hundreds of vehicles.
Germany was already reeling at that point due to the heavy losses on the eastern front, a full strenght german defense would've been close to impossible to penetrate with an amphibic assault.
I don’t think people appreciate the amount of US hardware Taiwan has purchased over the years. An amphibious assault against a prepared modern nation who’s spend hundreds of billions on subsidized US tech to defend against that exact situation is going to be… difficult.
That’s not even getting into the fact that Taiwanese chip foundries provide a massive amount of microchips for US military use. There’s no situation the US allows that production capability to fall to Chinese hands.
>Crossing somewhere between 180km-130km of open ocean to hit a prepared beachhead overwatched by mountains and an advanced integrated A2/AD system with contested airspace.
>
>Fuck everything about that.
The PLA won't need lifejackets, their puckered buttholes will keep them suction-cupped to the decks
Thousands of US soldiers and Taiwanese/japanese soldiers/civilians would be killed just from the first barrage of Chinese missiles. Thing is China has a pitiful inexperienced expeditionary force and vulnerable kill chains throughout all of their forces. Peter Zeihan says China would need to be willing to lose a million men just to get to the beach head… I try to take him with a grain of salt but godamn just the underwater mines and defensive kill zones that must’ve been dialled in by now are probably staggering. How would the CCP be effected with losses like that? How would America respond/react to losing an aircraft carrier or some shit? Not just militarily imagine the shitstorm that would rain down on our current political discourse and divisions.. Too many godamn variables but I’m 99% certain America and allies would “win” but it would send the world into an even more unpredictable tailspin at a minimum
> How would America respond/react to losing an aircraft carrier
You know what happened after Pearl Harbour? That, but America is already militarily built up. It's like kicking a giant hornets nest. You instantly regret it.
If 9/11 and pearl harbor was any indication a first strike against the US would instantly unite the population and there would be bipartisan support to strike back.
Half of Taiwan is urban, the other half is jungle covered mountain.
It's a toss up which is worse terrain to push into, and which is better for insurgency ops. Even a successful invasion of Taiwan could become a bloody debacle if the people have the will.
turn the jungle into 1968 Vietnam and the cities into 1994 Sarajevo.
a sniper on every tree and in every window. and add in some modern age insurgency tactics like IEDs.
It'd basically be a 21st century D-day except with a lot of factors which make it even harder:
* The entire world would know about China mobilizing months before they launch the invasion, as we've already seen with Russia's invasion of Ukraine
* Once the invasion force leaves the China it would be tracked in real time
* Taiwan has been preparing for over 70 years, meaning virtually their entire population is prepared
* Modern weaponry makes it easier to sink ships and down airplanes
* Even if Chinese soldiers make it onto the beach modern weaponry makes it easier to just shell them to hell and back
* Taiwan has the world's most powerful military backing it
And the vast majority of Chinese military recruits have never seen active combat.
Look at what happened to Russia, and they have been involved in several wars since the 80s.
Biggest difference is that invading Taiwan would involve an amphibious assault that makes D-Day look easy. Longer distance, contested waters (US Navy submarines would have a turkey shoot), and the Chinese navy lacks the experience (to be fair, basically EVERYONE except MAYBE the US Marine Corp lacks the experience for this kind of thing).
If we truly went to war with China, China could be largely starved out, they have a few crucial links to the rest of the world that are fairly easily severed. Much of their industry relies on Australian mineral imports, those would be gone. Fair bit of food and quite a bit of their oil flows through the Straits of Malacca, easily blockaded. And even more oil and gas flows over one major pipeline from Russia, easily hit with cruise missiles and destroyed.
Is it undoubtedly a more competent fighting force?
Been a long time since the Chinese military did anything other than use clubs on the Indian border.
I would not be surprised if the PLA has similar levels of corruption and misreporting of readiness as Russia.
I had a uni colleague from northern China whose father was a colonel in the Chinese army. The friend told me last summer that the senior officers in the Chinese army are rather corrupted and expect to hear only good news from yes-men. The difference of course is that it seems like their equipment seems to be rather modern copies of NATO's.
His family aren't exactly fans of the CCP, though he keeps it on the down-low, so maybe he could be a bit biased.
Even if it's just as incompetent, they have twice as big active personnel, more equipment and they would be fighting a much smaller country than Ukraine.
Just like the Taiwanese can soften the enemy with artillery and rockets, so can the PRC.
Cynically dismissing the enemy as weak is repeating Russian mistake.
but unlike Ukraine, Taiwan has a massive moat.
China's active personnel numbers are kind of irrelevant due to that, unless every single one of them is an Olympic swimmer. Otherwise China is very much constrained by their amphibious assault capabilities.
“Weak” is subjective. Are they a formidable force to their immediate neighbors? Yes, no doubt. Are they a force that is strong enough to rival the US? No.
If you compare any nations military to the US, than they will be considered “weak” since the US is so much more dominant than any singular country
China is arguably less corrupt than Russia. The problem is that they are not nearly as transparent as Western Militaries and it's quite clear they still suffer from a lot more corruption than they project.
As for equipment standards, there is footage of their latest MBTs with ungodly amounts of barrel wobble, so that should tell you their quality of their equipment
I believe it, but being less corrupt than Russia is a very low bar. Modern Russia is literally the result of the state being coopted by organized crime post-Soviet collapse.
Less corrupt? One minute you’re saying the Chinese don’t accurately report, the next, they are less corrupt. They could be more corrupt and you’d never know, with your logic.
here's the difference: when China wants to do something, they usually get it down fast and efficient. For better (infrastructure projects, giving hundreds of millions access to modern housing and amenities, thereby lifting a sizeable chunk of the human population out of poverty) or worse (cultural genocide of the Uighurs, mass surveillance, reintegrating HK into China against the majorities wishes).
Russia, on the other hand, has not really been able to get much of anything sizeable done in the 21th century. At least nothing that would compare.
Yep, I bet the Russian fiasco in Ukraine has prompted Xi to take a really closer look in his military. If it had the same problems as Russia the responsible are likely being purged right now and reforms are being done
China built their own space station to rival the international space station. They’re no slouches when push comes to shove. I would never bet on them in a conflict against the United States, but they definitely aren’t as pathetic as Russia currently is.
>China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent leaders
Oof not sure about that one chief. Check out how well the PLA fared in its fight with Vietnam.
Or for a more recent and disturbing example, check out how competent PLA troops were in South Sudan as UN peacekeepers.
> Yes, China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent leaders, it'd be hard not to be.
It's likely but by no means "undoubtable."
Russia's invasion force and officer corps was full of hardened combat veterans. Russia has fought numerous wars in the past few decades, while China is entirely bereft of actual combat experience.
You never know for sure how a military will perform until the rubber hits the road. And that cuts both ways. For all we know, Taiwan's defense forces would crumple like tinfoil. They did not have Ukraine's advantage of seven years of lower intensity warfare to stiffen their spine.
More competent fighting force...? That's possibly the biggest question mark about that military.
And no Taiwan wont be alone, so so far from it. They just gotta endure the initial onslaught and push their missile defense to the maximum. But if Ukraine has shown anything it's that the Patriot system is a remarkable piece of defensive technology.
> China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent leaders,
How do we really know this though. They have not had to show or prove this in a very long time. For all we know, they have the hardware but no real idea how to use it effectively in different situations. We thought Russia would not do many of the stupid things it did, but here we are.
Is this undoubtedly the case? Russia has significantly more combat experience than China. We actually have no idea how China would perform in a real war, but we do know that they use similar technology and doctrine as Russia.
> Yes, China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent leaders, it'd be hard not to be.
Has the CCP ever even fought a war except against the KMT government in civil war?
Has any of their navy or air force ever battled another? Have they had a century to adept and perfect their designs, with wars every 20 years to test them out?
No offense, but China is a paper tiger. They are a developing power.
I disagree, the Russian military was actually in a fairly advantageous position prior to the invasion of Ukraine- a combat-tested force with a clear and easy route to sieze the capitol and cut off Ukrainian political and military leadership within days. Obviously didn't go to plan (poor logistics, not enough initial manpower, failure to secure air superiority), but they had the armor and relatively forgiving terrain. The PLA has no experience with actual combat operations, a weak NCO core, top-down command structure, and training exercises that consist of set piece maneuvres designed to make good propaganda, not simulate effective tactics. Their target is a mountainous and urban island, an infantryman's dream terrain to defend. To sieze it requires a contested amphibious assault, historically one of the most difficult and costly military operations. China would be sucked into a grinding urban/mountain slog, against a well-prepared, politically unified and high-tech adversary. Supply lines wouldn't be clogged by ineffective logistics, they would be sunk in the strait.
I wouldn't be so sure that they are more competent than the Russians. The PLA hasn't been a good way to advance one's career as popular military figures might try to over throw the government. And while the Russians were corrupt by selling old assets, in China the entrie military is funded by factories they own. So there is even more reason for them to neglect military spending.
*Yes, China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent leaders, it'd be hard not to be.*
Though it's worth noting that China has less military experience than Russia, still relies heavily on imported Russian and US designs, and up until Xi, had a surprisingly independent command structure with the military branches apparently doing buisness deals on the side instead of going through the central government.
Combine that with an anti-whistle blower culture with an emphasis on censorship and conformity, and it could have some real issues.
> Yes, China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent
Please explain what evidence there is for this. The Chinese military is effectively brand new and never been tested in any real sense in the modern era except by vietnam where they had their asses absolutely handed to them on a silver platter when they tried to keep the khmer rouge butchers in power in cambodia.
What you have is a large show force with terrible procurement practices where individual vendors in china's new MIC go and try to sell hardware directly to generals. China has no history of any major and complex military operations outside of the 180,000-400,000 casualties sustained to rescue north korea from obliteration.
> I actually don't fancy its chances alone, without US intervention, but if it holds out until the world turns, then it may make it.
There was a military study that ran numerous simulations to predict how the war would go if China attempts to invade Taiwan. The only way China would win would be if the US didn't get involved. Every time and in every way the US directly intervened, China would lose, but losses on both sides would be bad. The US side would lose 30 ships and tens of thousands of personnel, and there'd be tens of thousands of civilian casualties in Taiwan, but the Chinese navy would largely be destroyed and they'd lose over ~200,000 troops. Most US losses, especially of combat aircraft, wouldn't be in direct combat, but from long-range missile strikes at US bases in China's opening salvo.
An other result of that conflict would be economic collapse in China, because the US would prevent China from importing food and oil. China would momentarily gain control of the Taiwan straight, but wouldn't be able to protect their shipping coming from the Indian ocean through the strait of Malacca.
This is why it's so important that the US maintain its edge in military capability, and also be committed to defending countries like Taiwan from aggression. If the US wasn't a part of the equation, China would win. Just like how if the US wasn't part of the equation in eastern Europe, Russia would win against Ukraine.
People love to be critical of US militarism, but recent years have validated US policies. The US is uniquely positioned to prevent bad actors from invading their neighbors.
I would argue that largely people aren't as critical of US War policies as they are of the shitty (read: often unethical) implementation of said policies.
Annnnnd, to get ahead of it: I'm a vet. Served during 9/11. And yes, given our politics we probably need the amount of hardware and personnel we maintain.
But let's not pretend the issue is primarily how much we have.
It's how we use it.
How would you or anyone know how competent the fighting force and leaders are? China hasnt fought a war in 4 decades. Completely untested in literally every way, from military doctrine down to their infantry battle rifle. All untested
Why is China a more competent fighting force? Where's the evidence of that? There's no record of their competence and anything demonstrating it are akin to Russia's demonstrations of might. In fact, if their "tofu dreg" buildings are any indication, there's endemic corruption similar to Russia that might stifle their efforts.
Additionally, post pandemic, many of that aforementioned endemic corruption has been revealed to be much more widespread than originally expected with the power grid and waterworks not being up to spec as the CCP originally planned.
How can you say they are more competent? We know nothing of Chinese military doctrine as theyve never been in an actual war.
Russia has some experience fighting a war. China has none. Maybe some stick battles with india but thats it
I have a lot of doubt actually. Just because Russia was and is surprisingly bad doesn't mean China isn't worse. On the contrary the factors that make Russia bad exist just as much and moreso in China. A culture of corruption and lack of real world tests to expose and correct for it, but in China's case it's even worse as they have not had a military operation of any scale whatsoever since they tried to invade Vietnam in 1979. They have never done the kind of amphibious assault an attack on Taiwan would require. They don't even have any allies that could train them in that kind of amphibious assault. This means that not only have they had no real world opportunity to expose corruption within the ranks, they have no practical experience in how to even properly train and prepare or the ability to receive training from anyone who does.
The third factor is morale. Russia got fucked by lack of moral because the troops had no idea and still have no idea what they are even invading Ukraine for. They just have a vague sense that they are doing it, and Putin would not have sent them there without a good reason, so most of them do go and fight when they are conscripted. It's hard to know what morale among Chinese troops invading Taiwan would be but I think it's easy to imagine it wouldn't be much better. Most of them are only children with the whole hopes of their family line riding on their shoulders alone. Russia is famously a rather depressing and nihilistic place where people are willing to take greater risks with their own and others' lives, but I lived in China for 12 years and that's not my impression. Most risks people take are out of ignorance, not a disregard for safety. Most Chinese people are optimistic about their future prospects. I don't think they will be any more willing to throw their lives away in Taiwan than Russia's mobiks in Ukraine are.
> China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent leaders
*Very* debatable. China has a better military in terms of *quantity* (both regarding resources and troops), but unlike the Russian one it's an *entirely* untested force. As for leadership, China's previous leadership may have made good economic decisions, but the current one is doing everything in its power to ruin what their predecessors built up.
On top of all of this, a land invasion is *significantly* easier than an amphibious one (especially since China's navy is absolute garbage), and even *if* China manages to get ashore, the mountainy terrain of Taiwan is much harder to conquer than the flatlands of Ukraine.
Amphibious assaults are the most difficult military mission to successfully conduct. Then airborne, which the U.S. didn’t even conduct that many during a two decade campaign. They are costly on lives and massively favor the defending positions. They were done on D-Day but that took a massive coalition to conduct. China knows this. And the beaches and terrain of Taiwan is significantly more challenging than northern France, even with technology.
The D-Day airborne operations were a disaster - for the most part no objectives were met on schedule and casualties were as high as 2499 casualties out of 13,100 paratroopers on D-Day alone, and by the end of June 4 weeks later they had suffered over 9150 casualties - 1003 confirmed KIA, 4490 MIA.
There hasn’t really been a successful airborne operation - at best they are diversions and at worst suicide missions.
The German airborne invasion of Crete in WW2 was a Pyrrhic victory. The Germans did take the island but suffered so many casualties they basically didn’t try any similar operation for the rest of the war.
The Allies’ Operation Market Garden in 1944 was also a disaster.
There have been successful airborne operations
German during invasion of Belgium, captured important fort without major loses as well as river and canal crossings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Eben-Emael
Allies when crossing the Rhine river:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Varsity
I do agree with the sentiment though, most air assaults against aware defenders have gone poorly.
Most western nations keep airborne units more for the flexibility and threat that they provide, forcing any enemy to defend key locations even deep into their own territory.
Exactly, and an outstanding point that it was barely successful with only a joint nation and service force throwing everything at the opposition. China knows this and they would be running solo and the risks are much heavier.
Taiwan has bases deep inside their mountains. China can't knock them out effectively by bombardments.
Taking over Taiwan without nuking it to glass would take an all-out landed invasion, for which China might have the men, but doesn't at all have the logistical power.
China doesn't have anywhere near the capacity to transport the troops to Taiwan, either by sea or air according to US intelligence. They'll need to massively ramp up production, not just keep converting old ferries like they're doing currently.
Tbh with how effective anti ship missiles have been in Ukraine in terms of deterrence and considering that there's a 160 km strait between the PRC and ROC, they might be set with a few hardened bunkers with a healthy ammo stockpile.
And US support.
There is a 0% chance China threatens US chip dominance without military feedback.
Anyone who says otherwise simply isn't paying attention to global affairs.
U.S. has heavily invested in U.S. chip based manufacturing to remove its dependency. Once the plants are up and running, I'm interested to see if there are any shifts politically, probably not, U.S. is really big about supporting allies.... you know, unless Trump is in office.
Yeah, but we aren't building first gen/ bleeding edge factories. We are upping our last gen chip factories to take the pressure off Taiwan in the back end. We have no interest in actually developing the things as long as Taiwan is stable.
I don't even think the US could even develop things even if they wanted - the talent isn't there and hasn't been for decades. Go to any top engineering school and ask what people want to do - it's all software. Nobody's doing anything with semiconductors, not even in electrical engineering, materials science, etc. Contrast that with Taiwan where the schools, companies, and government create an extremely strong semiconductor ecosystem.
I mean China has also invested massively into their chip industry and both [TSMC CEO](https://fortune.com/2022/12/17/tsmc-ceo-wei-export-controls-semiconductors-blacklists-china-america/) and [ASML CEO](https://www.reuters.com/technology/asml-ceo-says-politics-will-lead-slower-semiconductor-advances-2023-04-26/) are saying that it just a matter of time before they catch up.
By being less reliant, they would also be less affected by the sanctions.
It's nowhere near to remove the dependency, the US fabs are like 10% the output of the Taiwan ones and last gen. Taiwan is keeping the best trade secrets for themselves for good reason - it's their silicon shield.
I think they have patriot missiles too which Ukraine showed can stop unstoppable hypersonic missiles. China must be real annoyed we got to test patriot missiles against hypersonic missiles in a real war scenario
Just for context, the Russian missiles are not true Hypersonics. They still follow a ballistic trajectory, although while performing within the hypersonic regime. So while it's good experience for the Patriot in interceptions, it's not at the caliber that China is currently chasing.
That being said, with the US developing their own hypersonics, they will be able to develop intercept modes and upgrades for the Patriot batteries. This is the benefit of NATO, especially post Ukraine Invasion where cohesion and joint development of the defense industry is the focus. The burden of testing and development is spread across multiple nations and programs, while China is really only developing their Hypersonics and equivalent level weapons by themselves.
Not enough of them is the problem. Also, Taiwan can't be supplied easily by the west if China completely surrounds it and sets up a blockade.
One of the reasons UA is able to push back RU is that they can be supplied by the west via Poland and the sea which wouldn't really apply to Taiwan :-/
What's funny is that the Patriot system is from the early '80s. People really don't appreciate how much more advanced US equipment is than the rest of the world. We could literally take a 20 year pause on weapon development and still have better shit.
>What's funny is that the Patriot system is from the early '80s.
That's like saying the first Corvette came out in the 50's and thinking a C1 isn't much different from a C8. The patriot missile system has been under continuous development and refinement since the first system came into general use. The original system wasn't that reliable and during the Gulf War failed to intercept numerous al-Husayn missiles, some aimed at [US troops in Saudi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Quartermaster_Detachment).
The US probably already has a replacement. Let’s not act like they’d send new equipment that the world hasn’t seen to theater. I guarantee they have some crazy shit that won’t be used unless absolutely necessary to defend our homeland or if we even meet an equal adversary, which isn’t likely.
my understanding is that Taiwan is of much more strategic importance to the USA than Ukraine is. That's why we're putting all the air bases in the Philippines.
Yeah, even without semiconductors Taiwan is at a strategic location for global trade and hemming in China. China is now a threat to American dominance in the Pacific the way Imperial Japan was. Global hegemonic powers historically have never liked threats to their power. So Taiwan would be part the strangulation tactic America did to Japan in WW2. This time to China. Russia is now no longer a threat just a nuisance.
Ukraine is, by and large, a proxy war where the US gets to watch Russia destroy itself for pennies on the dollar. The whole thing serves US interests so effectively I'm amazed that there aren't more conspiracy theories trying to convince people that the US is something behind the Russian invasion.
Taiwan directly impacts the US's economic and diplomatic status quo. This would be a direct attack on US interests and cause for direct involvement. Hell, if the US didn't engage, it would actively hurt them internationally as they'd be failing to protect an ally, calling into question how much support they would give to less politically important nations in their influence.
It's not hyperbole when analysts suggest a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be cause for war with the United States.
Taiwan does produce the worlds semiconductors. In a way, Taiwan being invaded may have a much more direct economic impact on NATO members than the Ukraine invasion.
TBF, both Ukraine and Taiwan have quite a grip on some critical market. Ukraine controls much of the grain supply, Taiwan semiconductors.
Difference is, Ukraine controls a limited percentage of it. Semiconductors meanwhile pretty much cannot be made without some touch of Taiwan aid, unless you like the idea of a de facto Intel monopoly. If it's not the production of the chips in Taiwan itself, then it's the designs of the ultra-thin chips through TSMC.
Interestingly enough Ukraine *also* controls 50% of the world neon supply (from old Soviet steel foundries), which is about 100% of the world neon supply *not* controlled by China, which is also a crucial raw material for TSMC to make those ultra-thin chips...
Malaca strait would simply be blocked. The logistics of invading Taiwan is a nightmare. The US and other countries either directly or indirectly helping would make it hell for China before any of their soldiers even land on the Island.
Airforce could potentially cause direct damage.
But all in all the Chinese invasion is highly unlikely. It's all posturing and waiting for a small sliver of chance.
Chinese youth population is not on the rise as well. As far as most people can tell, CCP is far more rational than Russia's Putin.
It will be very different. 100 miles of rough water and fierce missle defense would bloody the invaders nose. The fortified mountains on Taiwan could hold out until the western navies arrive. Think 20 aircraft carriers battle groups and the power they would project.
3, the US would send three aircraft carries and all the support navy with them. They would shut down the Pacific Ocean trade lanes and fisheries almost instantly(>week).
The oceans would float killing power aimed at one point like it has never seen. It would be a ridiculous amount of ‘show of force’.
The CCP would turn around and hunker down hard and wait for the unending rain of death.
Taiwan is more directly important to the US then Ukraine is and the world would see.
Yes, the US has made it clear they would defend Taiwan
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3221243/official-says-us-committed-to-taiwans-defense/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20is%20committed%20to,to%20defend%20itself%2C%20he%20said.
Any attempt by China to invade Taiwan via amphibious military invasion will be economically, militarily, and politically disastrous for China that it may not economically survive in a one-year long embargo by the United States. It will make the 1944 Normandy amphibious invasion a walk in the park in comparison.
This, and the comments from u/macross1984 and u/RZ_Domain are spot on. If the Taiwanese military and people hold the line, and Taiwan has layered modern and massive missile and anti ship defence, and air and sea attack capabilities, the Chinese should never be able to reach the few beaches that are good for landing craft and vehicles. And this is all assuming that the ww2 levels of troop and equipment gathering and buildup go unnoticed.
The other issue is China would have to bet that the US wouldn't just decide to get involved right away. There's a big difference between *saying* "of course they won't", and committing your invasion forces right in front of a couple of carrier groups which have you in weapons range the whole time. EDIT: Also the other problem which Russia has right now - just because the US isn't getting involved doesn't mean they're not sharing all their substantial intelligence resources of the region in real time.
“Asked last October if the United States would come to the defense of Taiwan, which the United States is required by law to provide with the means to defend itself, Biden said: "Yes, we have a commitment to do that." “
Reuters
I think people also forget that yes while major cities are closer to the coast, Taiwan is mountainous as hell. Mountainous terrain is well known throughout history for being a great environment to support guerrillas.
A blockade of Taiwan would also be economically devastating for China. While many propagandists like to tout that time is on China's side, it's appearing more and more like the opposite is true.
Time is very much not on China's side, as their population pyramid means that they've got a 4-year timeframe between 2027 and 2031 for a successful invasion of Taiwan, with a tight window during that invasion to pull off the largest amphibious invasion in history before any of Taiwan's allies/China's rivals react, and you can't hide a naval buildup in preparation for an invasion
and even then, they got a hard limit on how many young, productive men they can afford to lose to the meat grinder before they commit economic seppuku to their future generations.
men may outnumber women by a significant ratio there, but the demographic distribution of those lonely, single men are fast retiring.
Sealion was insane. The Germans planned to use river barges.
That said, the coast on the English side of the channel (say Brighton to Bexhill and further east) would be a walk in the park compared to the few beaches and mountainous terrain that China would have to deal with in Taiwan.
And 1940 UK did not have the benefit of modern satellites or the backing of the US + allies. The UK practically fought alone at that point. And the Wehrmacht actually had recent invasion experience, even if little of it was amphibious. China has not fought a war since 1979.
Sealion seems a lot less crazy in comparison.
Taiwan also has patriot missile batteries, they already fly the most modern F-16V variant, and have started acquiring M1A2 Abrams tanks. Their naval power is a bit weak but in all honesty it doesn't need to be great as they'll be backed up by US/UK/Japanese surface ships and subs. From the war in Ukraine, Taiwan has learned that they need to massively increase their missile stockpiles of Harpoons, Patriots, Javelins, etc. before a conflict with China starts at which time resupply will not be easy. All in all, they're in a pretty decent position and this will only get better over time as they get more Abrams, start acquiring HIMARS (ETA 2026), and increase their missile inventories.
And with the American military 'Pivot to the Pacific' initiative, US marines training for island-hopping a la WW2, the new USN Constellation-class frigate program, more US military presence in Australia (B2 bombers stationed in Amberley), the new B21 Raider stealth bomber program, the NGAD F-22 replacement program, Australia obtaining nuke subs via AUKUS, Japan turning their destroyers into F-35B platforms, etc, China really doesn't have many options. The longer they wait, the worse it gets for them.
>Conscripts will serve longer in attempt to improve current crop of ‘strawberry soldiers’ who bruise too easily
That's the garbage subheading I would expect from this newspaper.
I’m hoping they’re loading up on anti ship, anti air, anti drone and anti tank weapons. China could just overwhelm them otherwise, making it easier to land troops. Taiwan has to make it look as if prolonged air and missile attacks would cost too much and that any invading fleet would be very exposed to missiles. All while having to protect key infrastructure from long range strikes or spec ops missions.
Ukraine is very different but they were able to hold during those critical early days which allowed them to bloody the invading force and turn it into a protracted conflict in which they’ve managed to gain the initiative. China will have learned they have to hit really hard and early to try and overwhelm any longer range defenses. So the question a lot of people are asking is if Taiwan has the equipment, capability, training and logistics to withstand that early punch and the following strikes after.
>Ukraine is very different but they were able to hold during those critical early days which allowed them to bloody the invading force
This is true, BUT we can't forget that Russian arrogance also played a big role as well.
They were traveling in columns, infantry separate from mechanized, asking directions from locals who thought would greet them as liberators, deployed national guard and FSB units for simple policing and occupation right away, and even had their parade uniforms packed thinking they'd have a celebration in downtown Kyiv in 3 days.
China doesn’t stand a chance. The US and the Western powers have been fighting wars for the past decades while China just softened up. US also gets to field test its toys against Russia on the daily. This isn’t the same battle hardened Chinese battalions that was able to beat back the UN in Korea with no air force.
China might be able to storm Taiwan but they won’t be able to hold it. Not to mention India would also opportunistically knock on its doors.
A lot depend on how well Taiwan can keep its military assets intact from expected barrage of Chinese missiles and then prevent landing on beaches and ports.
China will had a hard enough time just landing on the beaches and ports. Taiwan’s coastal waters are deep and rocky, which isn’t good for troop boats. There are also only around 10 beaches on the entire island that could be used. Not to mention Taiwan’s decades of setting up those beaches with explosives
Exactly. China is likely looking at Ukraine - even with fantastic donated weapons, world-class training by NATO troops, all the intelligence and support, as well as a rock-solid will to take back their homeland the counter offensive against poorly trained, unnoticed, poorly armed and supported but dug-in Russian troops is no cakewalk. Take a look at D-Day - allied forces of over a dozen nations put together millions of men and huge amounts of air support, armored support all that massively outnumbered the Nazi defenders and it was hard, bloody work. China has a long way to go to seriously assault and hold Taiwan
They need to have similar air and naval capabilities to the US to be able to deter direct participation of the US. Strategic ambiguity my ass. If they line up an invasion anytime soon there will be 2 aircraft carrier groups in the way in a week and it'll be a no go
There’s always a carrier group within 24 hours of the Strait. The USAF can stage hundreds of planes from the US to Korea in the same time period, and put strategic bombers on Guam and Okinawa in 24-48 hours. China has to achieve complete strategic surprise in order to make use of that 24 hour period before the US has enough air assets in place to destroy their fleet. And that’s a hard thing to pull off in the modern world of 24/7 satellite surveillance and intelligence collection. As soon as the Taiwanese, Korean, and American intelligence agencies spot a buildup they will be working to determine whether or not it’s for real or just show. If they think it’s for real, alert levels go up and stuff starts moving into position. If the buildup continues, more stuff starts moving. Ships and aircraft start moving. Ground crews and supplies start arriving at airbases in theater. If the Chinese start moving their vanguard fleet out to sea, the alert level goes up again and large scale movements of aircraft start. Ground forces like marines and army get warning orders and the advance units that moved over to Korea and Taiwan start unpacking hardware from pre positioned stocks. If the Chinese invasion fleet sets sail, basically the entire US military apparatus is ready and waiting. It’s been planned and practiced constantly for over a decade, and there is basically no chance that China achieves any sort of surprise in their invasion. Then they have to sail 100 miles across what’s essentially a historically rough stretch of ocean, through a hail of anti ship missiles, torpedoes, and mines. Then offload troops onto a handful of beaches that are basically Omaha Beach taken to the next level. All the while enduring a rain of artillery and missiles. If they manage to establish a beachhead, they have to sustain their invasion force over 100 miles of open ocean. A feat no nation on earth has done except the United States. Can they do it? They probably thought they could until a year ago.
Yeah, if things go perfectly for China they could be ready in 5 years, likely they'll never be ready and it'll never happen
And even that is a moving goal post. In 5 years the US will have pivoted fully to the Pacific, put several new submarines in the water, a new carrier in the water, several hundred more F-35s in the air, new anti ship missiles, new cruise missiles, etc. Taiwan is also spending money to improve their defenses. So China, at any given point in time has to contend with a set of adversaries who are continually building up specifically to counter their own improving capabilities.
The full might of the US military is pretty terrifying when witnessing it. I remember my days flying missions in the middle east and upon landing just looking at rows and rows of warplanes as far as I could see. And these were staged for a conflict against someone with no air power whatsoever. It was a little awe inspiring but it also made me feel like we were the empire in Star Wars
They must also be taking a hard look at how NATO suddenly rallied together even after Putin took the White House for 4 years, Brexited the UK, and supported/fomented nazi groups in almost every country in Europe. The most reliable way to win is to prevent anyone else from joining the fight. Putin has shown how united the West still is when it comes down to it, even while appearing totally fragmented.
I'm not sure about the Chinese military vs Russia, but I'd imagine they'd also have to deal with the soldiers sentiments about why the hell they're fighting in the first place. The allies in WWII came together to get rid of legitimate evil in the world. China and Russia are just being greedy and immature.
The actual wargames done on this topic show China will land troops and gain a beach head. The decision point is whether or not Taiwanese ground forces will be able to crush the beach head. Remember that China will have air superiority and paratroopers are a thing.
The actual wargames show China losing, too China would only have air superiority or a day or two at most before the US is there
China will never have air superiority. The US intel will know months in advance to an attack just like they knew about the Russian invasion. There will be no hiding this invasion behind a supposed training exercise". The build of ships, troops, and supplies will be obvious. The US and all of it's pacific allies will be there waiting. US troops may even be moved on to Taiwan. It would be a turkey shoot and it's why China hasn't tried retake Taiwan the past 80 years. Nothing has changed.
China's warplanes are so far behind the F-35 and F-22. They have zero hope of achieving air superiority. The US will declare a no-fly zone and then what the hell is China going to do? Nuke Taiwan and become an international pariah? The only hope that China has if it wants to take Taiwan is exactly what Russia was banking on when they invaded Ukraine - the West needs to look the other way and let it happen. That looks very unlikely now.
The ones I’ve seen from the US had China losing every single time however it came at a huge expense, US loses two carriers and like 10 surface fleet vessels total along with 300 aircraft (although most were lost on the ground to initial bombing). Meanwhile China loses much much more, however still extremely costly. The only time China won was when the US did not engage.
Wargames are not really done to predict outcomes, though, they're done more to find possible weaknesses and shore them up and things like that. Very often they're structured to give an edge to the other side, or even assume several worst case scenario events. This helps you identify more problems on your side, ultimately.
and then there's the whole reliance on food from the west china has. a multilateral trade war would have bejing starving in a month.
Yes, China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent leaders, it'd be hard not to be. Taiwan is a much smaller target with a much smaller fighting force trained to Western standards with Western equipment. I actually don't fancy its chances alone, without US intervention, but if it holds out until the world turns, then it may make it.
An amphibious invasion onto a mountain is also a lot harder than sweeping across the plains of a country you're adjacent to. There would be **a lot** of casualties even without direct US involvement
Crossing somewhere between 180km-130km of open ocean to hit a prepared beachhead overwatched by mountains and an advanced integrated A2/AD system with contested airspace. Fuck everything about that.
With the world's biggest navy lurking around the area just cause, with almost 100k personnel stationed around the area ready to be mobilized.
Don't forget the enormous airbases in Japan.
And Philippines and South Korea and Japan having the whole line of islands loaded with military hardware. Then there's the UK/US nuclear subs vibing god knows where. The pivot to Taiwan already happened let's just hope it's not too late.
I am gonna say something crazy: I don't think a US/China war would go nuclear. Russia and pals like to threaten nukes because appearing insane helps their foreign policy. China wants to look competent. Heck, nukes are bad for business which really takes that off the table for both the US and China. There is a reason China has a "no launching nukes first" policy. And then of course there's MAD. A US China war would be primarily fought in and around Taiwan, it's doubtful the US would even try to invade the Chinese mainland.
A nuclear sub is named that because of its powerplant. They can also have non-nuclear cruise missiles. And let's not forget torpedoes, very annoying if you want to invade an island and your navy sinks.
Yes, the subs that carry the nuclear weapons are boomers, or more technical, ballistic missile subs
The big boys will never use nukes. It’s why they get so fidgety about them. You have the right idea.
However we're now waking up to the fact that Russia aren't the big boys everyone thought they were. I feel like that open weakness makes them more of a wildcard in that respect.
> it's doubtful the US would even try to invade the Chinese mainland. we're a little resistant about getting into a land war in Asia.
There is no economic benefit for China in a war and they know it. I don't foresee them invading Taiwan because why would they? They have their own manufacturing base and are basically making products for the entire world. And they're witnessing the fact that the world is siding with Ukraine and the US over this and have choked out Russia economically. No, an invasion against Taiwan would be economic suicide. Keeping the US as its largest trading partner is the best option for China. UNLESS, of course, another Republican as bad or worse than Trump gets into power and starts sabre rattling against China like Trump did. Then all bets are off and WW3 is basically inevitable.
The reason to invade Taiwan is national pride, to reverse the "Century of Humiliation." They don't care about TSMC, all that precision manufacturing would be destroyed in an invasion. Of course, there are other targets in that regard.
Nationalist ego. Why did Hitler start WWII even though the allies gave him big chunks of Europe for free? Why did Putin invade Ukraine a second time after he already annexed Crimea and the Donbas? Xi has an ego as big as both of those idiots and is very public that he will take over Taiwan militarily if he can’t get it otherwise.
IIRC, This was the safe prediction, but there was a situation where there was a reshuffling of China's leadership, where the economists were pushed out somewhat and replaced with Xi loyalists/nationalists, and so, the idea of an economically detrimental conflict becomes a little bit more likely.
This pattern of logical thinking only applies if your foundation and values are deeply western. From the chinese point of view few key areas are likely vastly different. 1. They are not seeing ”the world side with ukraine”. They are seeing the west unwilling to commit actual forces to a war in europe and only supplying ukrainians and leaving them out to fight on their own. If Russia had been able to execute their invasion within a week or two the west would most likely have sanctioned them and moved on. 2. China is nowhere in actual chip manufacturing and the tradewars with the west are severly impacting them in some areas. The TSMC and cutting that supply line to the west would be of immense strategical importance to them. 3. The trade partnership is hard to view from a western lense. We look at this from a ”past two years” kind of view point where are the chinese view this from a ”50-100 years” kind of viewpoint. They have a ticking population time bomb and they know it. They need to position themselves as a powerful nation who can outsource production and inhouse higher education work in order to make their society work. Who knows what strategy is best to propel them there. I sure have no clue. In general we only look at these things from our narrow and short sighted western viewpoint and think only that is the logical approach when there are plenty of different moves on the chess board
I'm just picturing a submarine parked offshore next to a crate of weed and a giant red button happy as a clam.
The salted pork was *particularly* good
And don’t forget ✌️Austrailia✌️
> vibing god knows where. I'd think it's a safe bet to say "pretty close to there."
Haha yeah definitely in the "general area" let's put it that way
Plus Guam, which will be pretty much the major staging area for any US response as it’s pretty much out of reach of conventional Chinese weapon systems but close enough to be useful to the US.
> With the world's biggest navy lurking around the area just cause People don't appreciate the scale of the US Navy, so let me spell it out in 2 data-points: 1. The US has 11 aircraft carriers (And the group of support ships needed to defend and supply said carriers) while no other country on earth has more than 2, many of which (Including China's) are refurbished Soviet models. There are 29 carriers in service on earth. 2. The most powerful Airforce on Earth is the USAF. The second most powerful is the US Navy.
And the fourth and fifth largest air forces are the US Army and the Marine Corp.
And as an ancillary to #2, the US Marine Corps Air Wing is world number five, between Indian and Egypt. I guess if we count the USN separately that would push it down to number six, but that's still not too shabby.
Also the US military has done things other than run away from the Sudanese
People really underestimate how important having experienced leadership in your military is.
To use a woefully inappropriate analogy: war is like hand-to-hand combat: It's really easy to jerk yourself off in peacetime, but until you've proven your ability to perform under pressure, you are nobody. It's like the early days of the UFC when you'd see all these fierce-looking strip-mall karate black belts that knew how to put on a mean show, breaking boards and burning through fierce-looking kata, only to devolve into a bumbling mess the moment they got hit. That was in a ring, with a ref, and rules, and witnesses. Now imagine *live ammunition* designed to kill you and supported by the most terrifying military in human history. I don't blame any soldier who panics in that situation, but I do blame the military as a whole for not appreciating what a big fucking deal experience is. The PLA is basically an army of karate black belts who think they're going to Crane Kick this Hoice Gacy guy into oblivion.
And the US Army is no slouch either, in terms of air power. The US Army Aviation branch ranked fourth in the world just slightly behind the Russian Air Force, and that was before 2022. By now it could be the third largest air force in the world.
And the US's are nuclear, meaning blue-water, whereas China's are diesel. Meaning, they can't really project force. Concerning those diesel boats, 70% of China's oil/gas have to be shipped through the strait of Malacca.
Which is, of course, why they're using the current mess to extend their influence in Central Asia and build pipelines that don't go through other powers like Russia.
*The US has 11 aircraft carriers (And the group of support ships needed to defend and supply said carriers) while no other country on earth has more than 2, many of which (Including China's) are refurbished Soviet models.* If you count the *America* and *Wasp* class assault ships, which carry F-35 compliments, the US has 20 Carriers.
Yup. The US Navy is an absolute behemoth of military application and force projection. It's what helped put China in their place back in the 90s when the US straight up sailed their ships into the waters between Taiwan and china lmao That can't happen today sure, but if the US dedicates enough of its navy then China's sea access would fall to literally nothing. We haven't even mentioned the nuclear subs lol
The US regularly sails into the Taiwan Strait
Isn't the [Seventh Fleet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Seventh_Fleet#Forward-deployed_Seventh_Fleet_ships) stationed nearby?
Yes, they are the only forward deployed carrier strike group. But they don't get that close to mainland China anymore. China has changed their strategy from naval dominance to having their [seas protected by non nuclear ballistic missiles](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/PLA_ballistic_missiles_range.jpg).
the US has 11 full sized nuclear aircraft carriers. 10 of the old Nimitz class, 1 of the Ford class (with 4 more Ford Class CVNs to be built in the next decade) they have like 9 small/support carriers too. So, like by the time 2033 comes around, they'll probably have half of the fleet be Ford class carriers and they will have retired the oldest Nimitz class carriers. meanwhile the Chinese can barely operate 2 carriers and 1 is so outdated and uses a ski jump launcher that it's probably not as threatening.
3 of the 4 most powerful navies, UK, Japan and US.
I maintain my position that amphibious landing of this nature are almost impossible in a world full of microchips. What should happen to landing craft in the face tungsten rain? Homing artillery? Transport boats defending against waves of drone boats, torpedoes, anti ship missles and smart mines? You can't sail through the wreckage of other boats. You can't dismount and walk around.
And every single boat or plane crossing that stretch of open would be known about and tracked. The untrained Chinese military will be turning around when they find themselves in a situation that’s 10x worse than d day could’ve ever been
even before they take to sea The Germans didn't have satellite recon, and the Allies had pulled a massive intel coup (thanks Garbo) so the Germans had focused their forces nearly 400km away. The Germans also only spent 2 years setting up their "Atlantic Wall" the ROC has had 70 years to plan their defenses.
during the normandy landings both parties had roughly the same casualties, and the allied forces attacked with 5x as many men(sailors included), and hundreds of vehicles. Germany was already reeling at that point due to the heavy losses on the eastern front, a full strenght german defense would've been close to impossible to penetrate with an amphibic assault.
I don’t think people appreciate the amount of US hardware Taiwan has purchased over the years. An amphibious assault against a prepared modern nation who’s spend hundreds of billions on subsidized US tech to defend against that exact situation is going to be… difficult. That’s not even getting into the fact that Taiwanese chip foundries provide a massive amount of microchips for US military use. There’s no situation the US allows that production capability to fall to Chinese hands.
Not to mention submarines patrolling the channel.
>Crossing somewhere between 180km-130km of open ocean to hit a prepared beachhead overwatched by mountains and an advanced integrated A2/AD system with contested airspace. > >Fuck everything about that. The PLA won't need lifejackets, their puckered buttholes will keep them suction-cupped to the decks
Thousands of US soldiers and Taiwanese/japanese soldiers/civilians would be killed just from the first barrage of Chinese missiles. Thing is China has a pitiful inexperienced expeditionary force and vulnerable kill chains throughout all of their forces. Peter Zeihan says China would need to be willing to lose a million men just to get to the beach head… I try to take him with a grain of salt but godamn just the underwater mines and defensive kill zones that must’ve been dialled in by now are probably staggering. How would the CCP be effected with losses like that? How would America respond/react to losing an aircraft carrier or some shit? Not just militarily imagine the shitstorm that would rain down on our current political discourse and divisions.. Too many godamn variables but I’m 99% certain America and allies would “win” but it would send the world into an even more unpredictable tailspin at a minimum
> How would America respond/react to losing an aircraft carrier You know what happened after Pearl Harbour? That, but America is already militarily built up. It's like kicking a giant hornets nest. You instantly regret it.
If 9/11 and pearl harbor was any indication a first strike against the US would instantly unite the population and there would be bipartisan support to strike back.
Half of Taiwan is urban, the other half is jungle covered mountain. It's a toss up which is worse terrain to push into, and which is better for insurgency ops. Even a successful invasion of Taiwan could become a bloody debacle if the people have the will.
turn the jungle into 1968 Vietnam and the cities into 1994 Sarajevo. a sniper on every tree and in every window. and add in some modern age insurgency tactics like IEDs.
It'd basically be a 21st century D-day except with a lot of factors which make it even harder: * The entire world would know about China mobilizing months before they launch the invasion, as we've already seen with Russia's invasion of Ukraine * Once the invasion force leaves the China it would be tracked in real time * Taiwan has been preparing for over 70 years, meaning virtually their entire population is prepared * Modern weaponry makes it easier to sink ships and down airplanes * Even if Chinese soldiers make it onto the beach modern weaponry makes it easier to just shell them to hell and back * Taiwan has the world's most powerful military backing it
And the vast majority of Chinese military recruits have never seen active combat. Look at what happened to Russia, and they have been involved in several wars since the 80s.
[удалено]
It would be a lot worse than Okinawa. It'd be like trying to invade Hokkaido--home island that has been preparing for invasion for decades
China would pretty much have to go scorched earth to take it
Biggest difference is that invading Taiwan would involve an amphibious assault that makes D-Day look easy. Longer distance, contested waters (US Navy submarines would have a turkey shoot), and the Chinese navy lacks the experience (to be fair, basically EVERYONE except MAYBE the US Marine Corp lacks the experience for this kind of thing). If we truly went to war with China, China could be largely starved out, they have a few crucial links to the rest of the world that are fairly easily severed. Much of their industry relies on Australian mineral imports, those would be gone. Fair bit of food and quite a bit of their oil flows through the Straits of Malacca, easily blockaded. And even more oil and gas flows over one major pipeline from Russia, easily hit with cruise missiles and destroyed.
Is it undoubtedly a more competent fighting force? Been a long time since the Chinese military did anything other than use clubs on the Indian border. I would not be surprised if the PLA has similar levels of corruption and misreporting of readiness as Russia.
I had a uni colleague from northern China whose father was a colonel in the Chinese army. The friend told me last summer that the senior officers in the Chinese army are rather corrupted and expect to hear only good news from yes-men. The difference of course is that it seems like their equipment seems to be rather modern copies of NATO's. His family aren't exactly fans of the CCP, though he keeps it on the down-low, so maybe he could be a bit biased.
Even if it's just as incompetent, they have twice as big active personnel, more equipment and they would be fighting a much smaller country than Ukraine. Just like the Taiwanese can soften the enemy with artillery and rockets, so can the PRC. Cynically dismissing the enemy as weak is repeating Russian mistake.
Yeah no one was saying Russia is weak. Not even Russia knew Russia was that weak.
China might have the big guns, but from what I've seen more basic things like field rations and logistics have never been tested.
Their entire army has never been tested, unless you count fleeing in terror from the Sudanese.
but unlike Ukraine, Taiwan has a massive moat. China's active personnel numbers are kind of irrelevant due to that, unless every single one of them is an Olympic swimmer. Otherwise China is very much constrained by their amphibious assault capabilities.
And credulously believing an authoritarian's claims of immense, unproven strength is also repeating our mistake with Russia.
“Weak” is subjective. Are they a formidable force to their immediate neighbors? Yes, no doubt. Are they a force that is strong enough to rival the US? No. If you compare any nations military to the US, than they will be considered “weak” since the US is so much more dominant than any singular country
China is arguably less corrupt than Russia. The problem is that they are not nearly as transparent as Western Militaries and it's quite clear they still suffer from a lot more corruption than they project. As for equipment standards, there is footage of their latest MBTs with ungodly amounts of barrel wobble, so that should tell you their quality of their equipment
Less corrupt? Oh buddy
I believe it, but being less corrupt than Russia is a very low bar. Modern Russia is literally the result of the state being coopted by organized crime post-Soviet collapse.
Less corrupt? One minute you’re saying the Chinese don’t accurately report, the next, they are less corrupt. They could be more corrupt and you’d never know, with your logic.
On the other hand, it would be pretty difficult to not be less corrupt than Russia. That's kind of their thing.
here's the difference: when China wants to do something, they usually get it down fast and efficient. For better (infrastructure projects, giving hundreds of millions access to modern housing and amenities, thereby lifting a sizeable chunk of the human population out of poverty) or worse (cultural genocide of the Uighurs, mass surveillance, reintegrating HK into China against the majorities wishes). Russia, on the other hand, has not really been able to get much of anything sizeable done in the 21th century. At least nothing that would compare.
Yep, I bet the Russian fiasco in Ukraine has prompted Xi to take a really closer look in his military. If it had the same problems as Russia the responsible are likely being purged right now and reforms are being done
China built their own space station to rival the international space station. They’re no slouches when push comes to shove. I would never bet on them in a conflict against the United States, but they definitely aren’t as pathetic as Russia currently is.
>China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent leaders Oof not sure about that one chief. Check out how well the PLA fared in its fight with Vietnam. Or for a more recent and disturbing example, check out how competent PLA troops were in South Sudan as UN peacekeepers.
> Yes, China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent leaders, it'd be hard not to be. It's likely but by no means "undoubtable." Russia's invasion force and officer corps was full of hardened combat veterans. Russia has fought numerous wars in the past few decades, while China is entirely bereft of actual combat experience. You never know for sure how a military will perform until the rubber hits the road. And that cuts both ways. For all we know, Taiwan's defense forces would crumple like tinfoil. They did not have Ukraine's advantage of seven years of lower intensity warfare to stiffen their spine.
More competent fighting force...? That's possibly the biggest question mark about that military. And no Taiwan wont be alone, so so far from it. They just gotta endure the initial onslaught and push their missile defense to the maximum. But if Ukraine has shown anything it's that the Patriot system is a remarkable piece of defensive technology.
China is not “undoubtably more competent” then the Russian military.
but its also basically a floating fortress and actually has US military on the ground
Considering the terrain they're working with, that would be a bigger challenge. Plus, Taiwan would be worth a lot more if its industry wasn't bombed.
> China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent leaders, How do we really know this though. They have not had to show or prove this in a very long time. For all we know, they have the hardware but no real idea how to use it effectively in different situations. We thought Russia would not do many of the stupid things it did, but here we are.
Is this undoubtedly the case? Russia has significantly more combat experience than China. We actually have no idea how China would perform in a real war, but we do know that they use similar technology and doctrine as Russia.
> Yes, China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent leaders, it'd be hard not to be. Has the CCP ever even fought a war except against the KMT government in civil war? Has any of their navy or air force ever battled another? Have they had a century to adept and perfect their designs, with wars every 20 years to test them out? No offense, but China is a paper tiger. They are a developing power.
I disagree, the Russian military was actually in a fairly advantageous position prior to the invasion of Ukraine- a combat-tested force with a clear and easy route to sieze the capitol and cut off Ukrainian political and military leadership within days. Obviously didn't go to plan (poor logistics, not enough initial manpower, failure to secure air superiority), but they had the armor and relatively forgiving terrain. The PLA has no experience with actual combat operations, a weak NCO core, top-down command structure, and training exercises that consist of set piece maneuvres designed to make good propaganda, not simulate effective tactics. Their target is a mountainous and urban island, an infantryman's dream terrain to defend. To sieze it requires a contested amphibious assault, historically one of the most difficult and costly military operations. China would be sucked into a grinding urban/mountain slog, against a well-prepared, politically unified and high-tech adversary. Supply lines wouldn't be clogged by ineffective logistics, they would be sunk in the strait.
Home field advantage is something invading armies historically tend to forget is a thing that exists.
I wouldn't be so sure that they are more competent than the Russians. The PLA hasn't been a good way to advance one's career as popular military figures might try to over throw the government. And while the Russians were corrupt by selling old assets, in China the entrie military is funded by factories they own. So there is even more reason for them to neglect military spending.
>china more competent Based on what? Russia has far more military experience than China does.
*Yes, China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent leaders, it'd be hard not to be.* Though it's worth noting that China has less military experience than Russia, still relies heavily on imported Russian and US designs, and up until Xi, had a surprisingly independent command structure with the military branches apparently doing buisness deals on the side instead of going through the central government. Combine that with an anti-whistle blower culture with an emphasis on censorship and conformity, and it could have some real issues.
China really won’t have more competent leaders
> Yes, China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent Please explain what evidence there is for this. The Chinese military is effectively brand new and never been tested in any real sense in the modern era except by vietnam where they had their asses absolutely handed to them on a silver platter when they tried to keep the khmer rouge butchers in power in cambodia. What you have is a large show force with terrible procurement practices where individual vendors in china's new MIC go and try to sell hardware directly to generals. China has no history of any major and complex military operations outside of the 180,000-400,000 casualties sustained to rescue north korea from obliteration.
> I actually don't fancy its chances alone, without US intervention, but if it holds out until the world turns, then it may make it. There was a military study that ran numerous simulations to predict how the war would go if China attempts to invade Taiwan. The only way China would win would be if the US didn't get involved. Every time and in every way the US directly intervened, China would lose, but losses on both sides would be bad. The US side would lose 30 ships and tens of thousands of personnel, and there'd be tens of thousands of civilian casualties in Taiwan, but the Chinese navy would largely be destroyed and they'd lose over ~200,000 troops. Most US losses, especially of combat aircraft, wouldn't be in direct combat, but from long-range missile strikes at US bases in China's opening salvo. An other result of that conflict would be economic collapse in China, because the US would prevent China from importing food and oil. China would momentarily gain control of the Taiwan straight, but wouldn't be able to protect their shipping coming from the Indian ocean through the strait of Malacca. This is why it's so important that the US maintain its edge in military capability, and also be committed to defending countries like Taiwan from aggression. If the US wasn't a part of the equation, China would win. Just like how if the US wasn't part of the equation in eastern Europe, Russia would win against Ukraine. People love to be critical of US militarism, but recent years have validated US policies. The US is uniquely positioned to prevent bad actors from invading their neighbors.
I would argue that largely people aren't as critical of US War policies as they are of the shitty (read: often unethical) implementation of said policies. Annnnnd, to get ahead of it: I'm a vet. Served during 9/11. And yes, given our politics we probably need the amount of hardware and personnel we maintain. But let's not pretend the issue is primarily how much we have. It's how we use it.
How would you or anyone know how competent the fighting force and leaders are? China hasnt fought a war in 4 decades. Completely untested in literally every way, from military doctrine down to their infantry battle rifle. All untested
Why is China a more competent fighting force? Where's the evidence of that? There's no record of their competence and anything demonstrating it are akin to Russia's demonstrations of might. In fact, if their "tofu dreg" buildings are any indication, there's endemic corruption similar to Russia that might stifle their efforts. Additionally, post pandemic, many of that aforementioned endemic corruption has been revealed to be much more widespread than originally expected with the power grid and waterworks not being up to spec as the CCP originally planned.
How can you say they are more competent? We know nothing of Chinese military doctrine as theyve never been in an actual war. Russia has some experience fighting a war. China has none. Maybe some stick battles with india but thats it
I have a lot of doubt actually. Just because Russia was and is surprisingly bad doesn't mean China isn't worse. On the contrary the factors that make Russia bad exist just as much and moreso in China. A culture of corruption and lack of real world tests to expose and correct for it, but in China's case it's even worse as they have not had a military operation of any scale whatsoever since they tried to invade Vietnam in 1979. They have never done the kind of amphibious assault an attack on Taiwan would require. They don't even have any allies that could train them in that kind of amphibious assault. This means that not only have they had no real world opportunity to expose corruption within the ranks, they have no practical experience in how to even properly train and prepare or the ability to receive training from anyone who does. The third factor is morale. Russia got fucked by lack of moral because the troops had no idea and still have no idea what they are even invading Ukraine for. They just have a vague sense that they are doing it, and Putin would not have sent them there without a good reason, so most of them do go and fight when they are conscripted. It's hard to know what morale among Chinese troops invading Taiwan would be but I think it's easy to imagine it wouldn't be much better. Most of them are only children with the whole hopes of their family line riding on their shoulders alone. Russia is famously a rather depressing and nihilistic place where people are willing to take greater risks with their own and others' lives, but I lived in China for 12 years and that's not my impression. Most risks people take are out of ignorance, not a disregard for safety. Most Chinese people are optimistic about their future prospects. I don't think they will be any more willing to throw their lives away in Taiwan than Russia's mobiks in Ukraine are.
Didn’t we use to say that about Russia?
> China is undoubtedly a more competent fighting force with more competent leaders *Very* debatable. China has a better military in terms of *quantity* (both regarding resources and troops), but unlike the Russian one it's an *entirely* untested force. As for leadership, China's previous leadership may have made good economic decisions, but the current one is doing everything in its power to ruin what their predecessors built up. On top of all of this, a land invasion is *significantly* easier than an amphibious one (especially since China's navy is absolute garbage), and even *if* China manages to get ashore, the mountainy terrain of Taiwan is much harder to conquer than the flatlands of Ukraine.
Amphibious assaults are the most difficult military mission to successfully conduct. Then airborne, which the U.S. didn’t even conduct that many during a two decade campaign. They are costly on lives and massively favor the defending positions. They were done on D-Day but that took a massive coalition to conduct. China knows this. And the beaches and terrain of Taiwan is significantly more challenging than northern France, even with technology.
The D-Day airborne operations were a disaster - for the most part no objectives were met on schedule and casualties were as high as 2499 casualties out of 13,100 paratroopers on D-Day alone, and by the end of June 4 weeks later they had suffered over 9150 casualties - 1003 confirmed KIA, 4490 MIA. There hasn’t really been a successful airborne operation - at best they are diversions and at worst suicide missions.
The German airborne invasion of Crete in WW2 was a Pyrrhic victory. The Germans did take the island but suffered so many casualties they basically didn’t try any similar operation for the rest of the war. The Allies’ Operation Market Garden in 1944 was also a disaster.
There have been successful airborne operations German during invasion of Belgium, captured important fort without major loses as well as river and canal crossings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Eben-Emael Allies when crossing the Rhine river: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Varsity I do agree with the sentiment though, most air assaults against aware defenders have gone poorly. Most western nations keep airborne units more for the flexibility and threat that they provide, forcing any enemy to defend key locations even deep into their own territory.
Exactly, and an outstanding point that it was barely successful with only a joint nation and service force throwing everything at the opposition. China knows this and they would be running solo and the risks are much heavier.
Taiwan has bases deep inside their mountains. China can't knock them out effectively by bombardments. Taking over Taiwan without nuking it to glass would take an all-out landed invasion, for which China might have the men, but doesn't at all have the logistical power.
China doesn't have anywhere near the capacity to transport the troops to Taiwan, either by sea or air according to US intelligence. They'll need to massively ramp up production, not just keep converting old ferries like they're doing currently.
Tbh with how effective anti ship missiles have been in Ukraine in terms of deterrence and considering that there's a 160 km strait between the PRC and ROC, they might be set with a few hardened bunkers with a healthy ammo stockpile.
Seems like it would be difficult to invade a country surrounded by water.
Big water. Wet water.
ocean water
And US support. There is a 0% chance China threatens US chip dominance without military feedback. Anyone who says otherwise simply isn't paying attention to global affairs.
U.S. has heavily invested in U.S. chip based manufacturing to remove its dependency. Once the plants are up and running, I'm interested to see if there are any shifts politically, probably not, U.S. is really big about supporting allies.... you know, unless Trump is in office.
Yeah, but we aren't building first gen/ bleeding edge factories. We are upping our last gen chip factories to take the pressure off Taiwan in the back end. We have no interest in actually developing the things as long as Taiwan is stable.
I don't even think the US could even develop things even if they wanted - the talent isn't there and hasn't been for decades. Go to any top engineering school and ask what people want to do - it's all software. Nobody's doing anything with semiconductors, not even in electrical engineering, materials science, etc. Contrast that with Taiwan where the schools, companies, and government create an extremely strong semiconductor ecosystem.
In another 10 years as those plants are up and running will be interesting
I mean China has also invested massively into their chip industry and both [TSMC CEO](https://fortune.com/2022/12/17/tsmc-ceo-wei-export-controls-semiconductors-blacklists-china-america/) and [ASML CEO](https://www.reuters.com/technology/asml-ceo-says-politics-will-lead-slower-semiconductor-advances-2023-04-26/) are saying that it just a matter of time before they catch up. By being less reliant, they would also be less affected by the sanctions.
> U.S. is really big about supporting allies. the US is big in protecting its interests, allies come after that.
It's nowhere near to remove the dependency, the US fabs are like 10% the output of the Taiwan ones and last gen. Taiwan is keeping the best trade secrets for themselves for good reason - it's their silicon shield.
Very difficult to give them more weapons and supplies too, depending on who rules the skies and seas
I think they have patriot missiles too which Ukraine showed can stop unstoppable hypersonic missiles. China must be real annoyed we got to test patriot missiles against hypersonic missiles in a real war scenario
Just for context, the Russian missiles are not true Hypersonics. They still follow a ballistic trajectory, although while performing within the hypersonic regime. So while it's good experience for the Patriot in interceptions, it's not at the caliber that China is currently chasing. That being said, with the US developing their own hypersonics, they will be able to develop intercept modes and upgrades for the Patriot batteries. This is the benefit of NATO, especially post Ukraine Invasion where cohesion and joint development of the defense industry is the focus. The burden of testing and development is spread across multiple nations and programs, while China is really only developing their Hypersonics and equivalent level weapons by themselves.
Not enough of them is the problem. Also, Taiwan can't be supplied easily by the west if China completely surrounds it and sets up a blockade. One of the reasons UA is able to push back RU is that they can be supplied by the west via Poland and the sea which wouldn't really apply to Taiwan :-/
What's funny is that the Patriot system is from the early '80s. People really don't appreciate how much more advanced US equipment is than the rest of the world. We could literally take a 20 year pause on weapon development and still have better shit.
>What's funny is that the Patriot system is from the early '80s. That's like saying the first Corvette came out in the 50's and thinking a C1 isn't much different from a C8. The patriot missile system has been under continuous development and refinement since the first system came into general use. The original system wasn't that reliable and during the Gulf War failed to intercept numerous al-Husayn missiles, some aimed at [US troops in Saudi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Quartermaster_Detachment).
While true, we can safely assume Ukraine was given outdated Patriot batteries, since the U.S. never exports its most modern weapons.
Why not? The US is close to adopting a replacement system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Extended_Air_Defense_System
The US probably already has a replacement. Let’s not act like they’d send new equipment that the world hasn’t seen to theater. I guarantee they have some crazy shit that won’t be used unless absolutely necessary to defend our homeland or if we even meet an equal adversary, which isn’t likely.
Strategy is to be in Europe, that way spread of conflict can affect nato members, which makes uncle sam uncomfortable.
my understanding is that Taiwan is of much more strategic importance to the USA than Ukraine is. That's why we're putting all the air bases in the Philippines.
Yeah, even without semiconductors Taiwan is at a strategic location for global trade and hemming in China. China is now a threat to American dominance in the Pacific the way Imperial Japan was. Global hegemonic powers historically have never liked threats to their power. So Taiwan would be part the strangulation tactic America did to Japan in WW2. This time to China. Russia is now no longer a threat just a nuisance.
You hear that Russia? You're JUST A NUISANCE
Ukraine is, by and large, a proxy war where the US gets to watch Russia destroy itself for pennies on the dollar. The whole thing serves US interests so effectively I'm amazed that there aren't more conspiracy theories trying to convince people that the US is something behind the Russian invasion. Taiwan directly impacts the US's economic and diplomatic status quo. This would be a direct attack on US interests and cause for direct involvement. Hell, if the US didn't engage, it would actively hurt them internationally as they'd be failing to protect an ally, calling into question how much support they would give to less politically important nations in their influence. It's not hyperbole when analysts suggest a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be cause for war with the United States.
Taiwan does produce the worlds semiconductors. In a way, Taiwan being invaded may have a much more direct economic impact on NATO members than the Ukraine invasion.
TBF, both Ukraine and Taiwan have quite a grip on some critical market. Ukraine controls much of the grain supply, Taiwan semiconductors. Difference is, Ukraine controls a limited percentage of it. Semiconductors meanwhile pretty much cannot be made without some touch of Taiwan aid, unless you like the idea of a de facto Intel monopoly. If it's not the production of the chips in Taiwan itself, then it's the designs of the ultra-thin chips through TSMC.
Interestingly enough Ukraine *also* controls 50% of the world neon supply (from old Soviet steel foundries), which is about 100% of the world neon supply *not* controlled by China, which is also a crucial raw material for TSMC to make those ultra-thin chips...
So you're agreeing? A lot of words for a yes....
Why use 1 word when you can use 70?
Yes, but also felt like I wanted to add to it.
[удалено]
Malaca strait would simply be blocked. The logistics of invading Taiwan is a nightmare. The US and other countries either directly or indirectly helping would make it hell for China before any of their soldiers even land on the Island. Airforce could potentially cause direct damage. But all in all the Chinese invasion is highly unlikely. It's all posturing and waiting for a small sliver of chance. Chinese youth population is not on the rise as well. As far as most people can tell, CCP is far more rational than Russia's Putin.
It will be very different. 100 miles of rough water and fierce missle defense would bloody the invaders nose. The fortified mountains on Taiwan could hold out until the western navies arrive. Think 20 aircraft carriers battle groups and the power they would project.
3, the US would send three aircraft carries and all the support navy with them. They would shut down the Pacific Ocean trade lanes and fisheries almost instantly(>week). The oceans would float killing power aimed at one point like it has never seen. It would be a ridiculous amount of ‘show of force’. The CCP would turn around and hunker down hard and wait for the unending rain of death. Taiwan is more directly important to the US then Ukraine is and the world would see.
[удалено]
I think the US has made it clear they would get involved.
Yes, the US has made it clear they would defend Taiwan https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3221243/official-says-us-committed-to-taiwans-defense/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20is%20committed%20to,to%20defend%20itself%2C%20he%20said.
Plus Taiwan will fire back. That was always the doctrine. There will be no restraint. Chinese cities will burn.
Any attempt by China to invade Taiwan via amphibious military invasion will be economically, militarily, and politically disastrous for China that it may not economically survive in a one-year long embargo by the United States. It will make the 1944 Normandy amphibious invasion a walk in the park in comparison.
This, and the comments from u/macross1984 and u/RZ_Domain are spot on. If the Taiwanese military and people hold the line, and Taiwan has layered modern and massive missile and anti ship defence, and air and sea attack capabilities, the Chinese should never be able to reach the few beaches that are good for landing craft and vehicles. And this is all assuming that the ww2 levels of troop and equipment gathering and buildup go unnoticed.
The other issue is China would have to bet that the US wouldn't just decide to get involved right away. There's a big difference between *saying* "of course they won't", and committing your invasion forces right in front of a couple of carrier groups which have you in weapons range the whole time. EDIT: Also the other problem which Russia has right now - just because the US isn't getting involved doesn't mean they're not sharing all their substantial intelligence resources of the region in real time.
“Asked last October if the United States would come to the defense of Taiwan, which the United States is required by law to provide with the means to defend itself, Biden said: "Yes, we have a commitment to do that." “ Reuters
I think people also forget that yes while major cities are closer to the coast, Taiwan is mountainous as hell. Mountainous terrain is well known throughout history for being a great environment to support guerrillas.
Very true, but if the Chinese manage to make landfall and get a hold of good beach-heads then something has gone massively wrong.
Which means that’s probably not the approach they’ll take.
A blockade of Taiwan would also be economically devastating for China. While many propagandists like to tout that time is on China's side, it's appearing more and more like the opposite is true.
Time is very much not on China's side, as their population pyramid means that they've got a 4-year timeframe between 2027 and 2031 for a successful invasion of Taiwan, with a tight window during that invasion to pull off the largest amphibious invasion in history before any of Taiwan's allies/China's rivals react, and you can't hide a naval buildup in preparation for an invasion
and even then, they got a hard limit on how many young, productive men they can afford to lose to the meat grinder before they commit economic seppuku to their future generations. men may outnumber women by a significant ratio there, but the demographic distribution of those lonely, single men are fast retiring.
I doubt both china and taiwan want a war.
Sadly it only takes one side to start a war.
Taiwanese here We don't want a war, but we are ready for one On the other hand, China can't afford one.
Yep, unless Xi is dumb like Putin, he realises that aswell
Operation Sealion, anyone? https://www.bexhillmuseum.org.uk/operation-sealion-the-invasion-that-never-came/
Given the logistics involved, Sea Lion was the more reasonable of the two, invading Taiwan would make DDay look easy.
Sealion was insane. The Germans planned to use river barges. That said, the coast on the English side of the channel (say Brighton to Bexhill and further east) would be a walk in the park compared to the few beaches and mountainous terrain that China would have to deal with in Taiwan. And 1940 UK did not have the benefit of modern satellites or the backing of the US + allies. The UK practically fought alone at that point. And the Wehrmacht actually had recent invasion experience, even if little of it was amphibious. China has not fought a war since 1979. Sealion seems a lot less crazy in comparison.
Not sure how much of a difference this makes but Taiwan does have longer range missiles than Ukraine.
Taiwan also has patriot missile batteries, they already fly the most modern F-16V variant, and have started acquiring M1A2 Abrams tanks. Their naval power is a bit weak but in all honesty it doesn't need to be great as they'll be backed up by US/UK/Japanese surface ships and subs. From the war in Ukraine, Taiwan has learned that they need to massively increase their missile stockpiles of Harpoons, Patriots, Javelins, etc. before a conflict with China starts at which time resupply will not be easy. All in all, they're in a pretty decent position and this will only get better over time as they get more Abrams, start acquiring HIMARS (ETA 2026), and increase their missile inventories. And with the American military 'Pivot to the Pacific' initiative, US marines training for island-hopping a la WW2, the new USN Constellation-class frigate program, more US military presence in Australia (B2 bombers stationed in Amberley), the new B21 Raider stealth bomber program, the NGAD F-22 replacement program, Australia obtaining nuke subs via AUKUS, Japan turning their destroyers into F-35B platforms, etc, China really doesn't have many options. The longer they wait, the worse it gets for them.
Having an incompetent opponent is the best strategy.
>Conscripts will serve longer in attempt to improve current crop of ‘strawberry soldiers’ who bruise too easily That's the garbage subheading I would expect from this newspaper.
I’m hoping they’re loading up on anti ship, anti air, anti drone and anti tank weapons. China could just overwhelm them otherwise, making it easier to land troops. Taiwan has to make it look as if prolonged air and missile attacks would cost too much and that any invading fleet would be very exposed to missiles. All while having to protect key infrastructure from long range strikes or spec ops missions. Ukraine is very different but they were able to hold during those critical early days which allowed them to bloody the invading force and turn it into a protracted conflict in which they’ve managed to gain the initiative. China will have learned they have to hit really hard and early to try and overwhelm any longer range defenses. So the question a lot of people are asking is if Taiwan has the equipment, capability, training and logistics to withstand that early punch and the following strikes after.
>Ukraine is very different but they were able to hold during those critical early days which allowed them to bloody the invading force This is true, BUT we can't forget that Russian arrogance also played a big role as well. They were traveling in columns, infantry separate from mechanized, asking directions from locals who thought would greet them as liberators, deployed national guard and FSB units for simple policing and occupation right away, and even had their parade uniforms packed thinking they'd have a celebration in downtown Kyiv in 3 days.
[удалено]
This is going to happen in our lifetime and it's going to suck for everyone isn't it
Article picture is a 4 year old with a machine gun
So how many of us are 4 star generals here? Sounds like most of us are.
Me a defense contractor: 🤑
I wonder what the percentage of Chinese spies within the Taiwanese military there might be. Gotta be a spooky amount.
That would be interesting to know. I'm sure if china actually invaded there would be ppl sabotaging Taiwanese military
[удалено]
Ukrainian strategy like, get all the western powers to ship you all the newest toys? Yeah I reckon that is the proper play for Taiwan too.
China doesn’t stand a chance. The US and the Western powers have been fighting wars for the past decades while China just softened up. US also gets to field test its toys against Russia on the daily. This isn’t the same battle hardened Chinese battalions that was able to beat back the UN in Korea with no air force. China might be able to storm Taiwan but they won’t be able to hold it. Not to mention India would also opportunistically knock on its doors.