Can the US win a war with China? Shocking new simulation reveals what could happen if Taiwan is attacked

[Beijingwalker]

But US can "sanction" China


Trump says would impose tariffs if China invades Taiwan
Kanishka Singh - Reuters
Sat, 19 October 2024 at 8:10 am GMT+8

US presidential candidate Donald Trump says he would impose additional tariffs on China if it were to "go into Taiwan", the Wall Street Journal reports.

"I would say: If you go into Taiwan, I'm sorry to do this, I'm going to tax you, at 150 per cent to 200 per cent," the former US president was quoted as saying in an interview with the newspaper.

Trump, asked if he would use military force against a blockade on Taiwan by China, said it would not come to that because Chinese President Xi Jinping respected him.

"I had a very strong relationship with him," Trump said. "I wouldn't have to (use military force), because he respects me and he knows I'm f***ing crazy," he said in the interview.

China claims democratically governed Taiwan as its own territory and has never renounced the use of force to bring the island under its control. Taiwan strongly objects to China's sovereignty claims.

Trump, as part of his pitch to voters in the knife-edge November 5 election in which he faces Vice President Kamala Harris, has floated plans for blanket tariffs of 10 per cent to 20 per cent on virtually all imports as well as tariffs of 60 per cent or more on goods from China, in measures he says would boost US manufacturing.

During his term as president from early 2017 to early 2021, Trump's aggressive approach toward China was underscored by waves of tariffs that plunged the two countries into a trade war that moved markets worldwide.

In the interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump also spoke about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, repeating his claim that if he were still in office Russian President Vladimir Putin would not have launched the invasion.

"I said to Putin, 'Vladimir, we have a great relationship. ... Vladimir, if you go after Ukraine, I am going to hit you so hard, you're not even going to believe it. I'm going to hit you right in the middle of fricking Moscow'," Trump was quoted as saying when talking about a past interaction with Putin.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/trump-says-impose-tariffs-china-001042109.html

 

[KingQamaR]

There are reports from X military personnel in Pentagon that have served as military war game developers and they play-tester for dozens of titles. One, in particular, for those who are interested, is Decision Games' Red Dragon/which posts an aggressive China. They having play-tested this title a number of times. Sadly Taiwan never fares well. According to them!

 

[Han Patriot]

Dude, you are comparing coastal city to the entire country now?? And do you know how damage Ukraine is in part that was important? How about Kyiv? Kharkiv? Kherson?

You said coastal area, do you know how long is the Chinese coast? Do you know how many cities are there? Do you know the size of each city? One is a continent size country genius.

One tomahawk with a 500kg warhead has a blast radius of 20m, assuming the damage is 400sqm, one Burke can launch 100 missiles, assuming you have 100 Burkes, thats 4,000,000 sqm and it is equivalent to 4kmsq. Xiamen alone is 1700 sqkm vs Kiev 800 sqkm. That's assuming none of your destroyers get destroyed, and none of your missiles failed. Fine let's assume only 20% x 1700sqkm are buildings. That's 340sqkm, using ALL your destroyers firing
all your missiles at once, without failing, without getting your ships destroyed, without getting your missiles shotdown, you can only destroy 1% of Xiamen. That is only ONE CITY. Understand genius?

You don't need to damage everywhere, nobody would say you need to damage everything to extra a toll. Go look at a map and see how many cities in China is within 500km of Taiwanese Coast, all those city is going to be targeted Unless you can eliminate every threat both Naval and Ground, which you don't need to serve in the Military to know this is impossible.

You said you could DESTROY Chinese cities so now your benchmark is changing again? hahaaha. Unless we tie our hands from behind, even if all your destroyers fire all your missiles at once, you wouldn't even be able to destroy 1% of Xiamen. That's assuming none of our DF-21S, AD, ASM are working. That is also assuming our navy does nothing and just let your attack at will. Next time learn MATH genius.

First of all, as I said before, you can't track anything real time, the best bet you can is with AI doing Target ID, which you aren't good at, and it's still not going to be real time

Yes, all our satellites and tracking systems are for show. It doesn't work! Guess the award we won for AI image recognition during the Turing Awards meant nothing. I did image recognition AI remember genius? We had a debate and I caught you with your pants down? LOL

Second of all, you are expecting the US to just push the 10 Carrier into 2000km without any action station nor strategy, sure, if they do that, they probably deserve to lose them all, this is what you people never understand, you move tactically by combining a number of fleet, you push the contagious zone into China by first getting an exclusive zone operate by sub and smaller ship, and then move closer with the bigger ship, and finally with the carrier. It's called an executed manuver

You are saying it is so easy to defeat China, so I was using a hypothesis, let's assume all your 10 carriers are so well maintained that the availability rate is 100% and all your planes are reliable 100%. Strategy? US strategy is now the Ukraine strategy, Cheer on! ahhahahaha. Whatever maneuver you take, once you enter the Taiwan Straits, you are fried. Even if ALL your carriers come in at once. You aren't even counting missile replenishment. Wanna try and see how many missiles we can make in a day? We are practically firing from a huge aircraft carrier which is unsinkable aka LAND.

On the other hand, you aren't going to fight in China, you invade Taiwan, that mean that fight is going to be at least over Taiwan, and that mean you don't have any local advantage. Becuase if you fight the American in Taiwan, they are going to make it hel for you to entire the Taiwanese Airspace,

But do I expect that tiny brain of yours can process those information? No.

You still don't get it do you, the strategy is to starve Taiwan out. What do you think happens when China declares Taiwan a warzone? Is Maersk going to stop in Kaohsiung or Taipei? Is MSC going to deliver grain? Think boy, think!

LOL. Maybe we can all go home if you think 1 missile boat can sink a carrier.

Dude, you have no concept of how warfare work, I don't even know where to begin.

Russians estimated 12 antiship missiles to fully destroy a carrier, 8 to cost serious damage. One 022 can launch 8 missiles, if it hit the right place, a carrier CAN sink. Remember within the Taiwan Straits, Chinese navigation is hyper accurate. That's for carriers, a missile boat can easily sink a destroyer, that is assuming they are protected by AD near the coast.

You don't fight a war with 1 to 1. It's not a game, you don't go up with a Type 52 against a single AB Class destroyer. War is about combine action and maneuver. In this case, PLA would be in the disadvantage because YOU initiate the attack, which mean your navy can only do 1 of the 2. Either hunt down the US fleet as a pack OUTSIDE of Taiwanese Contagious Zone, or sit there and protect the fleet and the landing and the operation in Taiwan, you can't do both, NOBODY can do both. And you don't have enough ship and fleet to do both . Which mean either way you will have an issue because if you are tied down, and there are no way you can maintain sea control with 3 fleets, that's too big of a gap to cover, which mean your enemy can exploit them, or you can use the 2 fleet to stay on your side of Taiwan strait and protect the approach and launching 1 fleet to chase down the US fleet, but then it will be 1 against 3. Either.

A 052D with VLS cannot destroy a AB? hahahaha. As long as 3 missiles hit the AB, they will be gone, you don't need 50 missiles to sink one AB genius. The difference in tonnage is for range and armaments, even a smaller 054 can sink a destroyer, they just lack air cover. Damn, you are exactly as I predicted, you think one AB = 2 052Ds, LOLOL. You can't cure stupidity.

Attacking Taiwan and 'destroying Chinese coastal cities' are 2 different concepts numb numb. One is blockading around Taiwan, another requires you to enter Taiwan Straits to destroy our coastal city around Taiwan. Who says that we will land in Taiwan straightaway, the moment the supplies run dry in Taiwan, the populace will run amok and self destruct. Then with air raids from the mainland, using stealth fighters, old modified F-7 drones, artillery, missiles and newer drones, their air force/defenses/infrastructure is practically destroyed. How the heck are you going to supply Taiwan? Air lift rice for 20 mil people? Learn math genius.

In war, we don't just have everyone sit in one place and send missile or lob artillery, the first thing they teach you in Infantry School is how to move against an objective, and the first thing in Officer Candidate School is they teach you how to maneuver your unit into position to attack, to ambush and to work with other unit. If you think your war is going to be just sending artillery and missile on the other side, then you probably would have a big surprise when your troop land in Taiwan.

Infantry? hahahaha. You going to send boots on Chinese soil? Boy o boy, what are you smoking, do you know how many civillian militias there are in China especially coastal China? So infantry schools is teaching naval strategy now? hahhahaahhahahaahah. Only dumbasses think we will send in hundreds of landing ships without first destroying their defenses. Taiwan is 200km from mainland genius, you bombard them until they are soft, then you stab their belly genius. You don't walk into a minefield. What do they teach you in 'infantry' school man.

The highlighted sentence is the reason I said you have no idea at all how war is fought.

IF IT IS NEAR SHORE. What if it wasn't? What if your fleet has to chase down some target? What if you have to stay in one area to protect the approach? The what if part is why Akagi was sunk during Battle of Midway, in fact it's the reason why the entire battle was done for the Japanese, because they ignore the what if situation, because it's too implausible. You don't assume anything in war. Everything you have to prepared for. You can't just have one play book and think, if this war happened this way, then we will do that, because this through process does not exist in real war. you have to prepare for all possibility, in fact, many simulations would see US ship not even go inside the Taiwan Strait because their main job is to position themselves to support Taiwan, they don't need to get close to Chinese Coast, have you even thought about that?

Yea, during WWII do they have hyper precise gps? cm level optical and radar satellites? AI monitoring systems? 2000km ASBMs? Don't beat around the bush and talk as if the Chinese Navy is a sitting duck with their hand tied from behind. Physics work the same no matter where you come from. OOO so now US Navy is avoiding the Taiwan Straits? So when the Taiwanese air force and Navy is destroyed, who is stopping the Chinese amphibious ships? OOO yah, US cruise missiles can fly across mountain ranges. You do know the difference between ballistic missile and cruise missile trajectory right? Or you are telling me US is using ASBM to destroy Chinese amphibious ships? hahahahahh

And agian,you fight a war with equipment you get, you can't ask your enemy to wait for your next batch of product before they attack, be it 1 year or 3 months, once you expanded all your stored equipment, you are going to sit with your thumb up your arse waiting for your suuperor MIC to turn out the next one, only that your enemy will not stop and wait for you. Or why do you think Russia have to fight with 60 years old tank they got, instead of building new T-90? Do you

This must be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. For a sustained war, logistics is irrelevant? Production is irrelevant. So going by your logics, NATO shouldn't even send weapons to Ukraine, they should fight with what they get. Weapons delivery, storage and new production must be coordinated, inventories must be renewed, that's how wars are fought genius. US won the war with their industrial might against a more advanced German war machine. Same goes for the Soviets. When you fight a war, it is not just a day, or a month, it could be years. So you think we sit there and wait for our weapons to run out before producing new weapons? FFS are you dumb os something?? You start replenishing even before your inventories run dry genius. The weapons should flow continuously, you think soldiers are going to wait for bullets to fight?

think Russia lost the ability to build new tank?

Dude, your word make me laugh......

Again, that show you how lack of Strategic Thinking you have.

Why or how would Russia be destroyed at all if it was the one that attacking. The war can stop when Russia pull its troop out, so unless Putin is REALLY, EXTREMELY stupid and even stupider than you who come up with this idea. There are no way Russia can be destroyed. He would have pull his troop and stop fighting before it got destroyed by Ukraine with whatever mean possible. They are an active participant, not a passive a participant.

My point is since you think US is so stronk and since you think no nukes would be thrown, then why not attack Moscow and St. P? They are at their weakest point now. COME ON BABY! OOO so Chinese cities can be destroyed but not Russian ones? WTF logic is this? So China attacking Taiwan is not an active participant? But you were so sure you could 'destroy' Chinese cities. Who said anything about Russia losing abilities to build new tanks, they just lost the ability to build large destroyers fast enough.

And why would US destroy Saint Petersburg? Dude, that's not even a military target. In fact, why US need to do anything at all? Just because they don't like Russia does not equate to they need to send their force and destroy Russia, especially the war is not really going the Russian way to begin with. I see no need to even send American Personnel to protect Ukraine, why would they want to attack Russia? The only people that even Tried are all Russian, and some Ukrainian currently in Kursk

Why not? How come coastal Chinese cities are targets and St P cannot be a target? LOLOL. Hey you have selective logics here. OOO so now US doesn't need to do anyhting? I thought you could 'destroy' Chinese cities. Stop giving excuses, so now you are chickening out of Russia but in front of China another nuclear power, you are stronk? Let me get this straight, if China attacks Taiwan, US attacks China, but if Russia attacks Ukraine, US is cheerleading? hahahahahahahaahhahahaa

And talking about Kursk, the aim is very obvious that if there is a negotiation, you would trade Kursk with Russia, or if they would divert, which they did, that's why the Southern Attack is all but thawed, and force the Russia to either choose to support their force in the South or in Kursk, if the Ukrainian didn't invade Kursk, the Russian would have already taken Pokrovsk and Torske, that is a strategic move as it interdict supply line and draw your force into 2, you only see it as desperate act because your brain lack the function to see things strategically.

Trade Kursk? Then why not send in the whole Ukrainian Army into different parts of Russia and occupy a piece and trade? Send 100 soldier here and there, then move in deep by 100km, then trade. hahahahahaha. Stratgic my arse, You are thinning out your troops which could have been used to defend the front line. It is like you are taking away a plug for a leak and then creating a leak in another persons basin.

Well, Russia can only bark in Ukraine too, how's the 3 days operation going? From taking Ukraine as a whole to try to cut them off from the coast to now try to take Donbas, which is still multiple decade away, if that is ever possible.

Bark? Killing a few hundred thousand is barking? While US doing nothing but cheerleading is not barking? LOLOL. Despite the pathetic Russian performance, they did occupy 20% of Ukraine and US did NOTHING except sending weapons and cash. What happened to STRONK SUPAPOWAR.

I mean sure, if Russian tourist want to eat Chinese Food, that's cool, they can be your bitch for all I care. Have fun propping up a 1.5 trillion market with literally nothing in return but oil and potatoes, gosh, you must love Potatoes........

LOL

OOO, it is OIL, GAS, IRON, COAL, ALUMINIUM, COPPER, POTASSIUM, URANIUM, GRAIN, DAIRY, practically everything we need to sustain our industry mate. A 1.5 trillion Russia with so much resource is not better than a 5 trillion$ Japan? Economy is about exchanging goods and services mate, not exchanging dollars.

 

[Han Patriot]

View attachment 84770

View attachment 84771

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/230109_Cancian_FirstBattle_NextWar.pdf?VersionId=XlDrfCUHet8OZSOYW_9PWx3xtc0ScGHn

CSIS concludes that China is defeated in almost every scenario where US forces engage China.

Russia has practically no Navy now, go defeat them in Ukraine, they are next to NATO btw. Lololol. 24 ships can destroy 114 ships, very good mathematics.

100 022s with 8 anti ship missiles each , hyper accurate beidou, image/radar targeting cannot destroy a single destroyer in Taiwan Straits. Hmmmm.

The 40 plus Chinese 054A cannot destroy any ships apparently.

 

[j_hungary]

You said coastal area, do you know how long is the Chinese coast? Do you know how many cities are there? Do you know the size of each city? One is a continent size country genius.

DUDE........I said COASTAL AREA FACING TAIWAN.......and then said look at a map and see how large that area is within 500km from Taiwan coast, where did I say the entire coast?

One tomahawk with a 500kg warhead has a blast radius of 20m, assuming the damage is 400sqm, one Burke can launch 100 missiles, assuming you have 100 Burkes, thats 4,000,000 sqm and it is equivalent to 4kmsq. Xiamen alone is 1700 sqkm vs Kiev 800 sqkm. That's assuming none of your destroyers get destroyed, and none of your missiles failed. Fine let's assume only 20% x 1700sqkm are buildings. That's 340sqkm, using ALL your destroyers firing
all your missiles at once, without failing, without getting your ships destroyed, without getting your missiles shotdown, you can only destroy 1% of Xiamen. That is only ONE CITY. Understand genius?

You said you could DESTROY Chinese cities so now your benchmark is changing again? hahaaha. Unless we tie our hands from behind, even if all your destroyers fire all your missiles at once, you wouldn't even be able to destroy 1% of Xiamen. That's assuming none of our DF-21S, AD, ASM are working. That is also assuming our navy does nothing and just let your attack at will. Next time learn MATH genius.

Dude, you are funny, how about incendiary ordinance? How about HE Thermite Ordinance?

And you don't need to attack EVERY INCH of a city to achieve destruction, you go after target with value, a school or an apartment building have no value what-so-ever, so does road, bus stop, supermarket, I am talking about strategic target like airport, port, factory and so on.

Did you understand the concept of "Strategic Value" Mr Han Job?

Yes, all our satellites and tracking systems are for show. It doesn't work! Guess the award we won for AI image recognition during the Turing Awards meant nothing. I did image recognition AI remember genius? We had a debate and I caught you with your pants down? LOL

Tell me how you can track a target without either Identifying it and follow it? I don't know how much you know about how to use Satellite.

LOL, now you are saying you done AI, okay I'll bite, tell me the polygon ratio and noise distribution of a general photograph which was taken at 3820 x 2160 (4K resolution) on an object distant about 300-500km? And what will be the diffusion rate?

IIRC correctly, that previous "Debate" ended up as I ask you 3 questions and you have no answer and you also failed to show me you even went to University and I show you my ID Card when I was studying in UNSW computer engineering department.

You are saying it is so easy to defeat China, so I was using a hypothesis, let's assume all your 10 carriers are so well maintained that the availability rate is 100% and all your planes are reliable 100%. Strategy? US strategy is now the Ukraine strategy, Cheer on! ahhahahaha. Whatever maneuver you take, once you enter the Taiwan Straits, you are fried. Even if ALL your carriers come in at once. You aren't even counting missile replenishment. Wanna try and see how many missiles we can make in a day? We are practically firing from a huge aircraft carrier which is unsinkable aka LAND.

Do you even have a technical point in this?

And do YOU EVEN KNOW how many missile you made in one day? lol

Sure, you may 10 million mission a day, then?? LOL

You still don't get it do you, the strategy is to starve Taiwan out. What do you think happens when China declares Taiwan a warzone? Is Maersk going to stop in Kaohsiung or Taipei? Is MSC going to deliver grain? Think boy, think!

Dude, first of all, you say that as if Maersk won't deliver in warzone, they do in the middle east, and DHL et al deliver to Iraq WHEN I WAS THERE, i mean oh shit, we been in Iraq for 11 years and Afghanistan for 20, guess we should have been starve to death a long time ago lol...........how many warzones you were in to know none of these company will deliver?

Secondly, in case of war, they will be chartered by the US MSC (Military Sealift Command) and be staffed by US Merchant Marine sailor, just like what we did in all the war from 1900 on.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW CIVILIAN LOGISTIC WORK ON A WARZONE, SON

Russians estimated 12 antiship missiles to fully destroy a carrier, 8 to cost serious damage. One 022 can launch 8 missiles, if it hit the right place, a carrier CAN sink. Remember within the Taiwan Straits, Chinese navigation is hyper accurate. That's for carriers, a missile boat can easily sink a destroyer, that is assuming they are protected by AD near the coast.

Do you know the chance of 12 anti-ship missile hitting the same target IN SUCCESSION is? Missile have a rate between 15 to 30 hit rate. Let's use this report as a measure

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/exclusive-us-assesses-up-60-failure-rate-some-russian-missiles-officials-say-2022-03-24/

Russian missile have a 60% failure rate in Ukraine (and Ukraine is a non-peer with Russia) which mean for, let's just say 8, not 12, ballistic missile to hit the same ship at the same time is 0.4x0.4x0.4x0.4x0.4x0.4x0.4x0.4 = 0.00065536 = 0.06%.

But of course Chinese missile is different, right? Hit rate is 80% (That's very EXTREMELY generous) that's 0.8x0.8x0.8x0.8x0.8x0.8x0.8x0.8x0.8 = 0.16, that's 16%.

If you want to talk about mathematics.

A 052D with VLS cannot destroy a AB? hahahaha. As long as 3 missiles hit the AB, they will be gone, you don't need 50 missiles to sink one AB genius. The difference in tonnage is for range and armaments, even a smaller 054 can sink a destroyer, they just lack air cover. Damn, you are exactly as I predicted, you think one AB = 2 052Ds, LOLOL. You can't cure stupidity.

Where did I say a 052D cannot destroy a AB?

I said war is not fought 1 on 1, I never said any platform cannot defeat another platform, if you play the strategy right, even tin-can can beat Yamato. Which actually did happen in Battle off Samar. But how do you go about doing that is another issue.

As I said, you are going to either have to chase the US in sub infested open ocean or you have to stay behind and cover your landing force, YOU CAN'T DO BOTH. If you say the 3 Chinese fleet can do both (Hunt down the US fleet while protect the inland approach), then tell me how

Otherwise don't BS me please, I know about warfare, you don't

Attacking Taiwan and 'destroying Chinese coastal cities' are 2 different concepts numb numb. One is blockading around Taiwan, another requires you to enter Taiwan Straits to destroy our coastal city around Taiwan. Who says that we will land in Taiwan straightaway, the moment the supplies run dry in Taiwan, the populace will run amok and self destruct. Then with air raids from the mainland, using stealth fighters, old modified F-7 drones, artillery, missiles and newer drones, their air force/defenses/infrastructure is practically destroyed. How the heck are you going to supply Taiwan? Air lift rice for 20 mil people? Learn math genius.

Huh, so ship cannot enter the Taiwan Eastern Seaboard and HAVE TO TRAVERSE thru Taiwan Strait??

How are you going to cut off Taiwan from the East with just 3 fleet?? Here is a map of Taiwan, show me how



This is on a 50 mile scale by the way, which mean a dot extended 1 centimeter is 50 mil distant. A US Fleet, would have sea control of about 230 mile (or 200 nm) which mean a fleet would not have a bigger control than a circle about 4 cm wide on this particular map. Like this in the black circle



Tell me how 3 of these black circle can completely blockade Taiwan??

Infantry? hahahaha. You going to send boots on Chinese soil? Boy o boy, what are you smoking, do you know how many civillian militias there are in China especially coastal China? So infantry schools is teaching naval strategy now? hahhahaahhahahaahah. Only dumbasses think we will send in hundreds of landing ships without first destroying their defenses. Taiwan is 200km from mainland genius, you bombard them until they are soft, then you stab their belly genius. You don't walk into a

Well, they didn't tell what you just tell me in infantry school, that's for sure.

LOL, First, march 100 of transport ship? Dude, if only 1, 1 Anti-Ship Missile launcher left from Taiwan, you are going to get what we call "A BAD TIME" It generally take 3 hours to transit that 200km from China to Taiwan, you are talking about a combine defence of Sea Drone, ASM, Fighter cover and SAM. How dumb is it for you to march 100 transport ship into the coast? In fact, is it even possible? A transport ship (assuming you are talking about LST type) need around 500 meter clearance to operate on, otherwise you are going to get stuck on the beach. 100 ship mean 10 km long clearance, can you actually get that?

Then you look at the draft and the wave, you are going to catch hell with those 100 ship.

And then you can't shoot artillery over Taiwan Strait, which mean you need to lob missile, and it's a point to point attack weapon, how many missile do you need to neutralise even one coastal battery? 10? 20? 50? What about counter battery fire? They have missile that can reach back?

What about drones? And how do you propose to defeat the obstacle in the beach?

And then you are talking about facing a prepared defensive position, and with an expected enemy.

Yes, we weren't taught that in infantry school, that's for sure, they probably teach that in crazy school, if you think this will work. But then I will encourage you to apply for any PLA position, please, do and I sincerely hope they take you on in senior advisory role,

And where did I say US land troop in China??

minefield. What do they teach you in 'infantry' school man.

What minefield?

Yea, during WWII do they have hyper precise gps? cm level optical and radar satellites? AI monitoring systems? 2000km ASBMs? Don't beat around the bush and talk as if the Chinese Navy is a sitting duck with their hand tied from behind. Physics work the same no matter where you come from. OOO so now US Navy is avoiding the Taiwan Straits? So when the Taiwanese air force and Navy is destroyed, who is stopping the Chinese amphibious ships? OOO yah, US cruise missiles can fly across mountain ranges. You do know the difference between ballistic missile and cruise missile trajectory right? Or you are telling me US is using ASBM to destroy Chinese amphibious ships? hahahahahh

Are you sure about you can destroy the Taiwanese Airforce and Navy? You probably need to ask the Russian how they goes with getting Naval and Air Superiority in Ukraine against a country that have no capital ship and with beggared air defence. And Taiwan is a near peer with China, and you think you can completely destroy their Sea and Air capability.

Well, all I can say is I admire your optimism.

And again, what and why US Navy or Air Force need to traverse thru Taiwan Strait? The goal is to defend Taiwan, i don't think you can only do that in Taiwan Strait, or you are claiming a US Naval Task Group camping East of Taiwan can do nothing in Taiwan and they have to come from the Taiwan strait?

Dude, the goal is to defend Taiwan, not invade China. And if we have to invade China, we would probably do it on either end of your coast. That's strategically the best because that's the further away from mutual support.

This must be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. For a sustained war, logistics is irrelevant? Production is irrelevant. So going by your logics, NATO shouldn't even send weapons to Ukraine, they should fight with what they get. Weapons delivery, storage and new production must be coordinated, inventories must be renewed, that's how wars are fought genius. US won the war with their industrial might against a more advanced German war machine. Same goes for the Soviets. When you fight a war, it is not just a day, or a month, it could be years. So you think we sit there and wait for our weapons to run out before producing new weapons? FFS are you dumb os something?? You start replenishing even before your inventories run dry genius. The weapons should flow continuously, you think soldiers are going to wait for bullets to fight?

Where did I say logistic and production is irrelevant?

I said you need to wait for your force to regenerate, which mean it could NOT be used to replace lost.

Also, US and EU are not making those artillery shell, tanks, fighter and so on and send them to Ukraine, they transfer their existing stock for a reason, so they can be used IMMEDIATELY instead of getting an IOU and wait for 1 year.

My point is since you think US is so stronk and since you think no nukes would be thrown, then why not attack Moscow and St. P? They are at their weakest point now. COME ON BABY! OOO so Chinese cities can be destroyed but not Russian ones? WTF logic is this? So China attacking Taiwan is not an active participant? But you were so sure you could 'destroy' Chinese cities. Who said anything about Russia losing abilities to build new tanks, they just lost the ability to build large destroyers fast enough.

Why not? How come coastal Chinese cities are targets and St P cannot be a target? LOLOL. Hey you have selective logics here. OOO so now US doesn't need to do anyhting? I thought you could 'destroy' Chinese cities. Stop giving excuses, so now you are chickening out of Russia but in front of China another nuclear power, you are stronk? Let me get this straight, if China attacks Taiwan, US attacks China, but if Russia attacks Ukraine, US is cheerleading? hahahahahahahaahhahahaa

I think I am poor, and the bank is full of money that does not mean I need to rob it.

What is the reason to attack Moscow or St P? There are no reason at all beside you are trying to make this point. So I have all these bombs and equipment and I should shoot at someone?

Again, can the same being said to the Chinese when they think Taiwan is a cake walk? Then maybe you should just attack already and see how it goes?

This is just dumb, pure and simple, I have no other comment on it, talking to you on how war is fought is like talking to a kid how to build a nuclear power plant. Well, at least you are funny.

 

[100%_Guest]

Russia has practically no Navy now, go defeat them in Ukraine, they are next to NATO btw. Lololol. 24 ships can destroy 114 ships, very good mathematics.

A 022 with 8 anti ship missiles, hyper accurate beidou, image/radar targeting cannot destroy a single destroyer in Taiwan Straits. Hmmmm.

The 40 plus Chinese 054A cannot destroy any ships apparently.

I dont understand why you go to great length schooling 24/7 trolls

 

[j_hungary]

The most important is the electronic battlespace picture and nobody comes close to US in dominating that realm. Naval air conflict against celestials is what US Generals and Admirals have always dreamed of.

They need to hire these YAHOO to high up position within the PLA and we would have no problem.

All their "war plan" is basically we walk into their ambush, our troop destroyed, and they kill us with their missile, and we will just be standing there and take it.

Yes, that sounded like a Borat Approved good plan

 

[j_hungary]

US tech maybe better but the assumption they are using is grossly exaggerating how much better it will be. Thats why those numbers given can only be taken for what they are someones/groups hypothesis.

USN taking on the houthis is experience sure but it will be nothing like taking on a near peer like China.

The issue why US win 9 out of 10 times is because the US is mostly going to be in defensive, instead of being in an offence, which usually give the defender the advantage.

I don't know if I can show you how my own game play, and we portray the Chinese as efficient and as profession (otherwise 1 to 1 kill ratio) as the American, the fact that most of the time Chinese lost is because they would need to expand their TOO (Theater of Operation) once the US got involved, and that stretches the Chinese from coast to coast.

I will see if I can post my old game here, which was preside by a General and lead by a LTC and a Colonel

 

[liuzhengdong]

You talk about Korean war? No, if I remember correctly Truman and the entire cabinet is AGAINST bringing the war to the North and the force they raised from the UN is not enough to cover the entire Korea.

MacArthur was banking on the South Korean to make a difference and that China will not be intervene.

And again, if the war is with US Involvement, that war is NOT just going to be in Taiwan Strait. Chinese Fleet would need to be on the Eastern Seaboard of Taiwan to cut off Taiwanese supply line and Isolate it. Which mean the Chinese fleet need to fight in Western Pacific, also if US Navy is involved, that also mean embargo from as far as Middle East, Malacca Strait and Alaska can also affect China, because it blocks row material from South American, Africa from entering China to sustain Chinese industrial operation.

The U.S. Army has more than 100,000 troops in North Korea, the South Korean army has more than 300,000 troops, and the North Korean army has only 50,000 troops. The U.S. army has reached the border between China and North Korea and can occupy all of North Korea within a week.

China has a vast territory and abundant resources, and its domestic reserves are enough to sustain the war needs for one year. Russia and Central Asia can also provide raw materials. Russia has not collapsed for three years.

The embargo in the Middle East, the Strait of Malacca and Alaska will also affect the entry of raw materials and oil from Japan and South Korea, maintaining the operation of Japan and South Korea's industries. Japan and South Korea have more people, less land, and fewer resources. 90% of raw materials and food are imported by sea. China’s anti-ship cruise missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometers can sink all merchant ships of the United States, Japan and South Korea in the Western Pacific and attack ports. The maritime blockade has made it difficult for 200 million Japanese and Korean people to eat.

 

[Bengal71]

To quote the war game

U.S. and allied forces possess superior technology and training, which allows them to effectively counter Chinese advancements.

the deployment of stealth aircraft, such as the F-35, and advanced anti-ship missiles plays a crucial role in neutralizing Chinese naval and air assets.

the integration of these advanced systems enables U.S. and allied forces to establish control over the air and sea domains, which is essential for the successful defense of Taiwan.

Some massive assumptions there thinking this will be such a big force multiplier and the Chinese seem to be using paper planes and ships. No wonder the US wins 9/10 times.

EDIT: I would say however amphibious assaults are very tricky, that will pose a big challenge for China and then there is the uncertainty even if it is successful will there be an insurgency to deal with.

No insurgency is possible if China adopts a siege warfare tactic which is completely doable.

 

[j_hungary]

The U.S. Army has more than 100,000 troops in North Korea, the South Korean army has more than 300,000 troops, and the North Korean army has only 50,000 troops. The U.S. army has reached the border between China and North Korea and can occupy all of North Korea within a week.

China has a vast territory and abundant resources, and its domestic reserves are enough to sustain the war needs for one year. Russia and Central Asia can also provide raw materials. Russia has not collapsed for three years.

The embargo in the Middle East, the Strait of Malacca and Alaska will also affect the entry of raw materials and oil from Japan and South Korea, maintaining the operation of Japan and South Korea's industries. Japan and South Korea have more people, less land, and fewer resources. 90% of raw materials and food are imported by sea. China’s anti-ship cruise missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometers can sink all merchant ships of the United States, Japan and South Korea in the Western Pacific and attack ports. The maritime blockade has made it difficult for 200 million Japanese and Korean people to eat.

This has nothing to do with how many troop North Korea or China have. It's the US and UN force don't have troop to guard the entire island with just 500,000 troop, you don't just need to have front line fighting troop, but you also need to secure supply line and secure the rear, just because the frontline pushed north does not mean you don't need to station any troop behind, even if we are talking about area in the south, which mean you are going to litter that 500,000 troop along the entire Korea Peninsula, which is not going to be enough.

That's the same reason why China failed to take the South Twice, and that's the same reason why Russia failed to conquer the entire Ukraine.

 

[lightning f57]

You have the same issue with the lizard guy.

You have the war the other way around, it's not US against China, it's China against Taiwan with US involvement.

First of all, you can't draw the US into this war without drawing at least Japan into this war as well, secondly, the battlefield is NOT going to be on the Chinese Coast, but will be around Taiwan, and particularly the Eastern part of Taiwan.

As I explained before, China do not have enough sea power to project power on the other side of Taiwan coast, if they do, they are cutting off their own SLOC, and they WILL BE chasing the US Navy in the open ocean instead of in the confine of the Taiwan Strait.

On the other hand, logistically, US could have3 supply route to support their force, one from Japan down, another from Philippine/Singapore Up and the last one is directly from the Mariana's. Unless China can successfully interdict all 3-supply line, this is not going to stop the US from engaging the Chinese.

Japan will not get into a direct conflict with China if they invaded Taiwan that is my counter assumption.

The technology gap between the US and China is not so much that the US lose only 8 ships and China 129, yes as the attacker China will lose more.

From what I have seen with the CSIS war game these are big assumptions which the US need to play out on their side during a conflict with China. Ofcourse if you make favourable conditions victory is more likely, however real war never works this way. US planners IMO are overstating their ability, but they dont know Chinas true ability. Also beyond 2026 Chinas fleet will only get bigger and bigger. I dont see it likely the Trump admin will do a Ukraine with China 2025-2029.

 

[lightning f57]

No insurgency is possible if China adopts a siege warfare tactic which is completely doable.

They would need to put in place a blockade first, which will be one of the hardest tasks.

 

[liuzhengdong]

This has nothing to do with how many troop North Korea or China have. It's the US and UN force don't have troop to guard the entire island with just 500,000 troop, you don't just need to have front line fighting troop, but you also need to secure supply line and secure the rear, just because the frontline pushed north does not mean you don't need to station any troop behind, even if we are talking about area in the south, which mean you are going to litter that 500,000 troop along the entire Korea Peninsula, which is not going to be enough.

That's the same reason why China failed to take the South Twice, and that's the same reason why Russia failed to conquer the entire Ukraine.

With 500,000 aircraft, artillery and tanks, how could the United States and the United Nations fail to defend the Korean Peninsula? China has no air force and no navy, and it relies entirely on infantry to repel the US attack.

It is because China lacks air force and tanks and artillery that the Chinese army cannot move south.

Russia underestimated the enemy. In 2022, it dispatched 150,000 ground troops to invade. The Ukrainian army has 300,000 troops and has experienced 8 years of war. The Russian top leaders thought that the Ukrainian army would surrender without a fight like in 2014.

Russia has very few precision-guided weapons, and the air force is still using conventional bombs from the last century, resulting in heavy losses of SU-34.

 

[Alter_Ego]

The US fought and lost against China, in Korea, only a few years after end of WW2.
US had 50% of Global GDP and the mightiest Army in the world, far superior to PLA in every technological category.

Not saying, history is only there to be repeated. But what makes it so different this time around? Knowing PLA now is technologically almost on par with US Army.