And the fleet in Asia can destroy the Chinese cities? What has the Russo-UKrainian War prove to you? Even with thousands of bombs and missiles, Ukraine is still standing due to sheer size.
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 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.
Do you know why we have the world's largest optical, radar and signals satellite network? Do you know why we have the world's most hyperprecise mm level (near Taiwan Straits and Mainland) Beidou Navigation System? Do you know why we have the World's first ASBM system with 2000km range? Guess why? You think we can only destroy 3 CBGs? That is not counting the countless shore based ASM, AAM and submarines. The moment you enter Taiwan Straits, US Navy is basically fried. You can send 10 carriers and it will be toasted in that tiny area. You never said this and you never said that, hey you also say alot of things and don't admit thereafter, come on, I have caught you bullshiting numerous times LNG, Navy Rust and what else I forgot. lol.
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.
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
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.
Carriers lose their advantage in near shore battles against unsinkable land 'carriers'. Do you know how far the Chinese air defense system extend into. Do you know we can even vaporize Taipei from coastal China using just cheap artillery? You must be the genius who thinks it takes 2 frigates to sink 1 destroyer and 4 corvettes to sink 1 destroyer? LOL. Within the Taiwan Straits,
even the simple missile boat can sink a carrier.
Let's look at conventional warfare and see the balance
CHINA
US
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.
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.
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.
Why do you think we have 100+ fast agile missile boats? What do you think these boats can do near shore within the coastal air & antiship defence umbrella? A destroyer is basically a missile boat with air defense capability and longer op range. If it is near shore, covered by coastal air defense, a corvette or a missile boat can actually destroy any ship. Do you understand now? This is IF US sends in their WHOLE NAVY. Destroy Chinese cities my arse. Even tiny Ukraine after getting bombarded by thousands of missiles and artillery is still standing. I am not even getting into the industrial might of our MIC producing missiles, artillery and drones. What about ship repair, replenishment and supplies? US Okinawa base is 600km away. China is 200km from Taiwan. It will take US 10 hours travelling at 30 knots just to reach Taipei. Kiev is 800 kmsq and 1700 kmsq, is Kiev destroyed yet?
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?
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 think Russia lost the ability to build new tank?
Dude, your word make me laugh......
Do you want me to remind you of your 'intelligence' and how many times I caught you with your pants down? Nukes are weapons of last resort, why go nuke first when you can attack conventionally. Why do you think US is just cheerleading in Ukraine with POM POMs? If Moscow is destroyed conventionally by NATO, what do you think happens? They are gonna take it like a bitch? Now open up that big brain of yours and start thinking. If it was that simple, they why don't US destroy St. P? Occupy it? Hey, Ukraine is just next to NATO man, no sea barrier, easy logistics, huge NATO army. WHY???
Kursk is occupied by a weaker Ukraine, heck Ukraine can send anybody and camp in that 1000s of square km of wilderness, same like what Russia did intially, occupying 1000s of kmsq of empty land and then what? Does it mean anything besides prolonging the war? That's the act of desperation to get attention and funding and the stupidest move ever. What are they going to achieve doing that? Imagine there is a huge empty land in Siberia, and China moves in with 10'000 soldiers and encamp there, and then what? But if 10'000 Chinese capture Vladivostok, that would be different. So tell me why isn't US destroying Moscow or occupying Kursk? Despite having no CBGs, US does not even dare sink a Russian tugboat. WHYYYYYYY? GUESS WHY?
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.
It's stupid to think you are going broke to attack someone when the easiest way to prevent you from going broke is to stop doing it.
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
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.
You can have nukes since 1000BC for all I care. The point is the bombs now are 100x deadlier than Hiroshima. And that's the reason US can only bark in Ukraine. No Superpowers fight direct, they can fight indirectly because if Russia proper or Mainland China is attacked, the war will escalate very fast into nuclear war. Even if only Shanghai is destroyed, China WILL retaliate and DESTROY SF.
Which is a smarted move? Making Russia a NATO member and gangraping China? Or pushing Russia the world's largest resource center to China the world's largest industrial power? LOL. Doesn't take a genius to see it mate. Russia with access to Chinese market and industrial goods can militarize very fast. Look, Russia was supposed to have ran out of ammo 1 year ago, out of drones, out of missiles. WHERE DO YOU THINK THEY GET THEIR COMPONENTS?
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.
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
www.csis.org
www.rusi.org
