Iran killed any delusions of US military domination over China

[Lulldapull]

All I hear is waling .

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Converted colluddzz log in disarray today.

Irans won dis long ago, in case you haven’t noticed it yet.

 

[lightning f57]

Delusional. I guess in your world Taiwan just sits there allowing China to "park" 2-3 battle groups around it and wish Taiwan's coastal anti ship missiles, navy and air force away? Brilliant strategic thinking.

No they would have pounded their defences with BMs drones and other guided munitions first. The battle groups would blockade and ensure no country trys something funny, however unlikely that will be. USN wouldn't be seen for dust.

 

[东风夜放花千树]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Converted colluddzz log in disarray today.

Irans won dis long ago, in case you haven’t noticed it yet.

I agree with your point of view.

Whether a war is won should be judged by whether the objectives are achieved. The United States did not achieve its operational goals; on the contrary, Iran struck U.S. military bases, forcing the U.S. forces to withdraw from the Middle East.

At the same time, we need to note that the world's number one, the U.S., and the Middle East hegemon, Israel, invaded Iran, which had lost its naval, air, and air defense advantages. The Epstein coalition used weapons of absolute superiority but did not gain a battlefield advantage. This has had a huge impact on U.S. military hegemony, dollar hegemony, financial hegemony, and media hegemony.

In this war, the Epstein coalition not achieving victory means they lost the war, and Iran not losing the war means they won.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

The US thrives on global chaos while China requires global stability.

 

[SolarWarden]

No they would have pounded their defences with BMs drones and other guided munitions first. The battle groups would blockade and ensure no country trys something funny, however unlikely that will be. USN wouldn't be seen for dust.

Iran has launched over 1100 ballistic missiles (likely 1300)since TP-1 at Israel including drones and cruise missiles and what have those missiles done? Has it slowed down the IAF? Their navy? You Think Taiwan is just going to sit by as China amasses its missile force, air force and naval ships sail to sea? Taiwan and US is going to have weeks warning as PLA moves their forces for such a strike an naval operation.

Just because a military has shiny new toys doesn't mean they know how to use them and what I mean by that is use them in a cohesive combine arms/Joint-command style fighting. PLA severely lack such capabilities, just like the Russians, and will not fair well just like the Russians.

 

[huanghong]

Iran has launched over 1100 ballistic missiles (likely 1300)since TP-1 at Israel including drones and cruise missiles and what have those missiles done? Has it slowed down the IAF? Their navy? You Think Taiwan is just going to sit by as China amasses its missile force, air force and naval ships sail to sea? Taiwan and US is going to have weeks warning as PLA moves their forces for such a strike an naval operation.

Just because a military has shiny new toys doesn't mean they know how to use them and what I mean by that is use them in a cohesive combine arms/Joint-command style fighting. PLA severely lack such capabilities, just like the Russians, and will not fair well just like the Russians.

chatgpt answer
This claim feels a bit like a “shoot-from-the-hip conclusion” and shouldn’t be treated as serious analysis.


Let’s break down the core question: How capable is the PLA in terms of organizational ability?

---

Past vs. Present: Major Changes Have Happened​

If we’re talking about the People's Liberation Army around the early 2000s, then some of that criticism had merit. At the time, issues included:

• Poor coordination between services (army, navy, air force operating separately)
• A complex, slow command structure
• Limited experience in joint operations

However, after the 2015 military reforms, there have been significant changes:

• Establishment of theater command system (similar to U.S. combatant commands)
• Creation of joint operations command centers
• Emphasis on “informationized” and “system-of-systems” warfare
• Elevation of the Rocket Force and creation of new domains like strategic support

In other words:
Today’s PLA is not the “old PLA” many forum commenters still imagine.

---

Why Is the U.S. Taking This Seriously?​

You raised an important point:
The United States Air Force and United States Department of Defense take China’s capabilities seriously.


That’s because they rely on measurable indicators, not opinions:

✔ Joint strike systems are taking shape​

• Integration of Rocket Force, Air Force, and Navy long-range strikes
• Anti-ship ballistic missiles (e.g., DF-21D, DF-26)
• Use of drones and electronic warfare

This reflects system-level warfare capability, not isolated units.

---

✔ Training is becoming more realistic​

• Regular joint exercises around Taiwan scenarios
• Simulated blockade and air-sea integration drills
• Focus on anti-access/area denial (A2/AD)

This suggests they are actively learning how to use their systems, not failing to.

---

✔ Improvements in command and information systems​

• Data link integration (conceptually similar to Link-16)
• Fusion of satellites, UAVs, and radar
• Enhanced battlefield awareness

---

What’s Wrong With That Forum Argument?​

The core logic of the comment is:

“Advanced equipment ≠ ability to fight → PLA cannot conduct joint operations.”

This is half true, but the conclusion goes too far:


✔ What’s valid:

• Lack of modern combat experience is indeed a limitation
• The U.S. military has far more real combat experience

What’s flawed:

• Claiming “severe lack of organizational ability” is an exaggeration
• It ignores a decade of reforms focused precisely on joint command

---

A More Balanced Assessment​

A more reasonable conclusion would be:

PLA organizational capability:

• Not “severely lacking”
• Not yet at U.S. combat-proven maturity
• ⚠ Rapidly improving, especially in system integration

---

Why the U.S. Is Cautious While Some People Dismiss It​

This comes down to different mindsets:

• Military institutions (like the USAF) plan for worst-case scenarios
• Online commentators often rely on impressions and bias

If the military underestimates an opponent, the consequences are real.
If a commenter underestimates one, nothing happens.

---

Final takeaway​

The PLA is not a military that “cannot organize operations,” but rather one that is rapidly improving its joint command capabilities—though still lacking real combat validation.
Here’s a clear, policy-style English assessment that reflects how the U.S. military currently evaluates China’s progress in this area:

---

Assessment:

The US Department of Defense assesses that the People's Liberation Army has made substantial progress over the past decade in developing joint operational and command capabilities. Through structural reforms, the establishment of theater commands, and increasingly complex, realistic training exercises, the PLA has moved beyond a force with largely service-centric operations toward one that can conduct coordinated, multi-domain operations.

U.S. evaluations indicate that the PLA now possesses a functional framework for joint warfare, including the ability to integrate air, naval, ground, missile, cyber, and space assets under centralized command structures, and to execute operations on relatively short notice.

However, the assessment remains cautious. The PLA’s joint capabilities are still considered evolving rather than fully mature. Persistent concerns include:

• limited real-world combat experience,
• potential rigidity in command structures,
• and institutional factors that may affect operational flexibility and effectiveness.

As a result, U.S. officials generally view the PLA as a rapidly improving and increasingly capable military force, but one whose true performance in large-scale, high-intensity conflict remains unproven.

---

Bottom line:

From the U.S. military perspective, China is no longer seen as lacking joint operational capability; rather, it is viewed as a serious and advancing competitor whose capabilities are credible, but not yet fully tested or understood.

 

[KingQamaR]

No they would have pounded their defences with BMs drones and other guided munitions first. The battle groups would blockade and ensure no country trys something funny, however unlikely that will be. USN wouldn't be seen for dust.

Lots of military experts have said that Beijing's anti maritime missile bubble already extends over Taiwan. They don’t need to be physically on the other side. With air dominance they can cripple in and outgoing shipments just by destroying Taiwan Ports. You can’t feed 20 million people on pontoon bridges alone.

 

[lightning f57]

Iran has launched over 1100 ballistic missiles (likely 1300)since TP-1 at Israel including drones and cruise missiles and what have those missiles done? Has it slowed down the IAF? Their navy? You Think Taiwan is just going to sit by as China amasses its missile force, air force and naval ships sail to sea? Taiwan and US is going to have weeks warning as PLA moves their forces for such a strike an naval operation.

Just because a military has shiny new toys doesn't mean they know how to use them and what I mean by that is use them in a cohesive combine arms/Joint-command style fighting. PLA severely lack such capabilities, just like the Russians, and will not fair well just like the Russians.

Iran doesn't have an airforce China does with 5th gen aircraft. China wont be giving advance notice like Iran did or will Taiwan have anywhere near the interceptors to stop Chinese missiles.

China has the largest no of drones, ships, missiles, they can churn them out like there is no tomorrow - how do you think Russia has survived v Ukraine. US can't match China in industrial capacity.

China don't need to send in ships right away, a blockade would cripple Taiwan, they import all their fossil fuels, they need key food staples after a few weeks would start to face collapse, they depend on fresh water from desalination plants, their tech industry their main earner needs critical imports to function, would collapse after a month.

This is without China even firing a shot, they have more advance missiles than the US who was late to the hypersonic party, they can hit all over Taiwan at ease. Taiwan would be swallowed whole by China no comparison.

Your maga politician's wont be risking thousands of casualties for Taiwan, your Asian allies have seen how unreliable you are. The USN is very capable but as we have seen from the conflict with Iran you havnt got the stomach for big casualties and with China it will be the worst kind of losses you can imagine.

 

[lightning f57]

If USA can reduce the Chinese military to the level of Iranian military, it has won the war.

Objectives matter. Propaganda and chest thumping don't at the end.

If they dont turn up how's that even going to happen. They will need to move all their ACs to take on China to try for a victory even then no guarantee.

 

[Just Another Indian]

If they dont turn up how's that even going to happen. They will need to move all their ACs to take on China to try for a victory even then no guarantee.

My point was, if in a conflict, they can degrade the capabilities of the Chinese military to the level of the Iranian military after the iran war, it would have achieved it's target.

US needs to be hoodwinked into the war.

Though US won't fight china for Taiwan. Lip service, posturing, a few ACs in the region. they won't fight.

 

[lightning f57]

My point was, if in a conflict, they can degrade the capabilities of the Chinese military to the level of the Iranian military after the iran war, it would have achieved it's target.

US needs to be hoodwinked into the war.

Though US won't fight china for Taiwan. Lip service, posturing, a few ACs in the region. they won't fight.

"According to a new analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and other sources, the following US Army losses are known:

45% of arsenals of precision strike missiles;
almost 50% of Patriot interceptor missile arsenals;
30% of Tomahawk missile arsenals;
more than 20% of long-range air-to-ground missile arsenals;
20% of SM-3 and SM-6 missiles.

It will take 4-5 years to replenish these reserves."

Thats whats being reported - Iran took that much damage in 40 days and still came out fine - from a military sense. If they take on China in China's back yard they will run out of weapons before China will, infact your point will be reversed.

 

[ety]

chatgpt answer
This claim feels a bit like a “shoot-from-the-hip conclusion” and shouldn’t be treated as serious analysis.


Let’s break down the core question: How capable is the PLA in terms of organizational ability?

---

Past vs. Present: Major Changes Have Happened​

If we’re talking about the People's Liberation Army around the early 2000s, then some of that criticism had merit. At the time, issues included:

• Poor coordination between services (army, navy, air force operating separately)
• A complex, slow command structure
• Limited experience in joint operations

However, after the 2015 military reforms, there have been significant changes:

• Establishment of theater command system (similar to U.S. combatant commands)
• Creation of joint operations command centers
• Emphasis on “informationized” and “system-of-systems” warfare
• Elevation of the Rocket Force and creation of new domains like strategic support

In other words:
Today’s PLA is not the “old PLA” many forum commenters still imagine.

---

Why Is the U.S. Taking This Seriously?​

You raised an important point:
The United States Air Force and United States Department of Defense take China’s capabilities seriously.


That’s because they rely on measurable indicators, not opinions:

✔ Joint strike systems are taking shape​

• Integration of Rocket Force, Air Force, and Navy long-range strikes
• Anti-ship ballistic missiles (e.g., DF-21D, DF-26)
• Use of drones and electronic warfare

This reflects system-level warfare capability, not isolated units.

---

✔ Training is becoming more realistic​

• Regular joint exercises around Taiwan scenarios
• Simulated blockade and air-sea integration drills
• Focus on anti-access/area denial (A2/AD)

This suggests they are actively learning how to use their systems, not failing to.

---

✔ Improvements in command and information systems​

• Data link integration (conceptually similar to Link-16)
• Fusion of satellites, UAVs, and radar
• Enhanced battlefield awareness

---

What’s Wrong With That Forum Argument?​

The core logic of the comment is:




This is half true, but the conclusion goes too far:


✔ What’s valid:

• Lack of modern combat experience is indeed a limitation
• The U.S. military has far more real combat experience

What’s flawed:

• Claiming “severe lack of organizational ability” is an exaggeration
• It ignores a decade of reforms focused precisely on joint command

---

A More Balanced Assessment​

A more reasonable conclusion would be:

• Not “severely lacking”
• Not yet at U.S. combat-proven maturity
• ⚠ Rapidly improving, especially in system integration

---

Why the U.S. Is Cautious While Some People Dismiss It​

This comes down to different mindsets:

• Military institutions (like the USAF) plan for worst-case scenarios
• Online commentators often rely on impressions and bias

If the military underestimates an opponent, the consequences are real.
If a commenter underestimates one, nothing happens.

---

Final takeaway​

The PLA is not a military that “cannot organize operations,” but rather one that is rapidly improving its joint command capabilities—though still lacking real combat validation.
Here’s a clear, policy-style English assessment that reflects how the U.S. military currently evaluates China’s progress in this area:

---

Assessment:

The US Department of Defense assesses that the People's Liberation Army has made substantial progress over the past decade in developing joint operational and command capabilities. Through structural reforms, the establishment of theater commands, and increasingly complex, realistic training exercises, the PLA has moved beyond a force with largely service-centric operations toward one that can conduct coordinated, multi-domain operations.

U.S. evaluations indicate that the PLA now possesses a functional framework for joint warfare, including the ability to integrate air, naval, ground, missile, cyber, and space assets under centralized command structures, and to execute operations on relatively short notice.

However, the assessment remains cautious. The PLA’s joint capabilities are still considered evolving rather than fully mature. Persistent concerns include:

• limited real-world combat experience,
• potential rigidity in command structures,
• and institutional factors that may affect operational flexibility and effectiveness.

As a result, U.S. officials generally view the PLA as a rapidly improving and increasingly capable military force, but one whose true performance in large-scale, high-intensity conflict remains unproven.

---

Bottom line:

From the U.S. military perspective, China is no longer seen as lacking joint operational capability; rather, it is viewed as a serious and advancing competitor whose capabilities are credible, but not yet fully tested or understood.

It's pointless to argue with someone that arrogant that believes the US can anytime readily end or destroy 5000 years old Chinese civilization in a Taiwan war without serious US damage just as Trump said about Iran in the Iran war.

 

[PakFactor]

Is it the same as "Ukrainian is just like Russian, who fled the famine, but overall, 99% of Ukrainian are Slavs, and they both speak Russian," Or both Koreans are Korean, and South Koreans only fled south to escape the Russians and Japanese occupation, and they would be more than willing to reunited with the North seeing ethnic Korean account for 99% of South Korean Population.

Dude, again, you can think whatever you want to think, the problem is, you aren't Taiwanese, you are Chinese, and you will never know what the Taiwanese think simply because you are not them. The only way you know is if you fight them. And if you plan an operation, "counting on them are going to rise and welcome you as liberator with both arms because they are both Chinese," wait a minute, geez, where have I heard that before?

The bolded part reflects a situation Pakistan itself faced in the 1948 and 1965 conflicts over Kashmir. The Kashmiris under Indian control failed to rally and counter the Indians; instead, many joined the Indian-led operations to counter the Pakistani invaders. It was part of our calculus when initiating the conflict that they would flip. Pakistan still follows that failed policy, which is draining our national treasury.

It's always foolish to hope the Taiwanese would flip, considering for over 70+ years they've built their own identity regardless of being part of any Asian subgroup.

 

[Just Another Indian]

"According to a new analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and other sources, the following US Army losses are known:

45% of arsenals of precision strike missiles;
almost 50% of Patriot interceptor missile arsenals;
30% of Tomahawk missile arsenals;
more than 20% of long-range air-to-ground missile arsenals;
20% of SM-3 and SM-6 missiles.

It will take 4-5 years to replenish these reserves."

Thats whats being reported - Iran took that much damage in 40 days and still came out fine - from a military sense. If they take on China in China's back yard they will run out of weapons before China will, infact your point will be reversed.

Iran is not fine. Iran has been set back by at least 20 years. In a matter of months. All it has is underground missiles and drones. Susceptible to detection and getting destroyed. Iran doesn't have the upper hand in this conflict.

Ofcourse missiles have been spent by US. That's why they are manufactured. That is agreeable. They can be repleinshed. That is not a loss. It just needs faster production.

 

[LX1111]

Iran has launched over 1100 ballistic missiles (likely 1300)since TP-1 at Israel including drones and cruise missiles and what have those missiles done? Has it slowed down the IAF? Their navy? You Think Taiwan is just going to sit by as China amasses its missile force, air force and naval ships sail to sea? Taiwan and US is going to have weeks warning as PLA moves their forces for such a strike an naval operation.

Just because a military has shiny new toys doesn't mean they know how to use them and what I mean by that is use them in a cohesive combine arms/Joint-command style fighting. PLA severely lack such capabilities, just like the Russians, and will not fair well just like the Russians.

I think you should learn about the various joint military exercises of China's land, sea, and air rocket forces since 2012.That statement might have made some sense 20 years ago.There may have been some prejudice ten years ago.To say such things today is simply ignoring the facts.
As for Taiwan, there was a few weeks' warning time.That is true.