US will run out of missiles in war with China, lose the conflict, warns Congressional wargame

[SolarWarden]

Lol. Am I going to have to copy and paste again why Chino is a paper tiger like Russia? I guess I am so here we go...

-Over the past 5 years, China has undertaken radical reform of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). This modification is sweeping in its scope (encompassing changes to strategy, force structure, and technology) and clear in its purpose to create, in the words of Xi Jinping, a joint force that can “fight and win.”1 If this reform succeeds, China’s regional neighbors and the United States could find that the People’s Republic, whose leadership is already demonstrating an increased assertiveness, will be emboldened further still. Successful reform is not assured—indeed, many of China’s previous attempts at military transformation have failed—but Xi does wield near-unprecedented power to force change. It is therefore prudent to assume this reform will succeed and understand both its consequences and how best to respond.

This article analyzes PLA reforms and identifies vulnerabilities in China’s new joint force. The first section analyzes the changes to the Central Military Commission (CMC), the highest level of the PLA, set in the context of China’s model of national decisionmaking and civil-military relations. The second section considers the restructuring of the PLA, focusing particularly on its new Strategic Support Force (SSF) and revised theater-level organization. The third section explores the measures that could disrupt and defeat this new joint force via targeting the vulnerabilities identified in sections one and two.

The article anticipates that four key vulnerabilities will exist within the reformed PLA. First, the joint force will embrace a model of highly centralized decisionmaking, which could prove ill-suited to the demands of major combat operations. Second, the reformed PLA force will struggle to integrate multidomain operations at the joint theater level. Third, the reformed PLA will lack the capabilities to project, sustain, or command its forces across the spread of China’s global interests. And last, the PLA is currently hindered by a lack of meaningful operational experience.

 

[SolarWarden]

And anotherone...

Be alert to China’s military weaknesses:

-Some of those who want to appease Beijing assert that China’s military superiority would enable it to defeat the US over Taiwan. Like the supposed superior strengths of the Chinese economy, these arguments are based on false premises. The fact is China’s military strength is entirely unproven in practical terms and, like its ally Russia, China has serious military weaknesses.

As the well-regarded Swedish Defence Research Agency has recently observed, a rethink of Moscow’s military capability is clearly warranted to understand the causes of the current malaise in Russia’s military capabilities. The agency says that is needed both for the West to adjust to its demonstrable shortcomings and weaknesses and, equally importantly, to understand their causes and long-term strategic implications. In my view, Western intelligence analysts and policymakers have consistently overrated Russia’s and the Soviet Union’s military strengths. And precisely the same mistakes are now being made about China’s PLA.

What are the reasons for this? First, as Professor Zoltan Barany of the University of Texas has argued: when the adversary is a totalitarian state it is easier to make judgements based on quantitative assessments of counting weapons—tanks, jet fighters, and missiles—and raw manpower, rather than on the qualitative and psychological characteristics that often determine the military’s performance on the battlefield.

Second, because of Russia’s and China’s autocratic systems and pervasive corruption, it has proved difficult for them to bring the kinds of innovation, adaptability, and versatility that tend to produce the best outcomes on the battlefield. The fact is it is easy to concentrate on the material strengths of both China and Russia that can be counted by overhead means of intelligence, while neglecting crucial intangibles such as the quality and experience of their troops.

Third, one of the most serious intangible defects of China’s and Russia’s military forces is that they lack a critical mass of professionally trained NCOs. The dearth of professional non-commissioned officers means that totalitarian armies are unable to fight effectively because NCOs provide the vital link between officers and soldiers about battlefield decision-making. Military command and control culture boils down to trust, including at the operational level.

Trust is not one of the strengths of authoritarian states like China and Russia. As the US Center for Security and Emerging Technology has observed, military command and control in such authoritarian regimes have rigid and fragmented command and control structures because the political leadership does not trust the military leadership, and the military does not trust the rank-and-file. Such systems fail to successfully share information, discourage initiative, and prevent battlefield lessons from informing strategy or being incorporated into future military doctrine. These critical structural deficiencies are part of both China’s and Russia’s military DNA.

Fourth, there has been far too much focus on weapons systems and new technology and endless claims that each new Chinese or Russian weapon is so much superior to those of the US. An example of this recently was when an ‘expert’ in Canberra proclaimed that China’s latest nuclear attack submarine was quieter than the US Virginia class. That sort of ill-informed judgement is typical of those who have never had the security clearance for close-quarter covert submarine operations or an understanding that the US still dominates war under the seas. For example, China’s strategic nuclear submarines (SSBNs) do not provide Beijing with an assured nuclear second-strike force because they are very vulnerable to US attack submarines (SSNs).

Fifth, few in the West pay close attention to the actual composition, training, and preparedness of Russian and Chinese troops themselves or their ability to operate as a joint force outside of artificial planned exercises.

And sixth, authoritarian leaderships in both China and Russia are typified by deep-seated despotism that typifies military politics, and pervasive corruption that saps the fighting strength of their armed forces.

Finally, it is little understood in the West that the oath of allegiance of PLA soldiers is to the Communist Party of China, whereas that of the Soviet Army was to defend the USSR. Chinese troops must waste much of their time studying and regurgitating Communist Party propaganda, which further detracts from their military expertise. Long may they continue to waste their military training spending countless hours on such irrelevant ideology as Xi Jinping’s Thought!

None of this is to argue that the weaknesses and deficiencies of both China and Russia are identical. But the fact remains that much more so than Russia, China has no practical combat experience worth talking about. Its last serious use of force overseas was in 1979 when it sought to teach Vietnam a lesson—and failed miserably.

The believers in Australia of China’s military superiority seem to accept that China has the means and the will to escalate indefinitely and thereby defeat the US and that China is also prepared to pay any price because it enjoys escalatory dominance and cannot be deterred. My view is that the hypothetical of a defeated US in Taiwan (and perhaps at the same time NATO in Europe) increases the risks of nuclear war. Those who argue that we should surrender Taiwan to China or risk nuclear confrontation fail to understand China’s military weaknesses.

In conclusion, we need much more serious and in-depth analyses of China’s military weaknesses and deficiencies. I reject the arguments of those who proclaim that the risks are too high of resisting and deterring a China that allegedly has superior military forces to those of America. Those who carelessly assert that the US is finished, that China inevitably will be the dominant military power over the entire Asia-Pacific region, and that our only survival will be to get out of the ANZUS Alliance need to think again. Their argument is based on very shaky views of China’s military superiority which is a superficial and untested assertion.

The fact is that China shares many of the fatal weaknesses of Russia’s military, which is performing so abysmally in Moscow’s war in Ukraine. I believe that the prudent defensive policy of the US and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region, including Australia, must be to acquire the military capabilities to constrain, check and deter any expansionist ambitions of the PLA.

 

[SolarWarden]

Yu can have all the shiny weapons but all that doesn't matter if you can't fight as a whole unit while at the same time depending on orders from centralized leadership. The first targets US loves to hit is the enemies ability to communicate with each other and when a military is centralized like the PLA once air force and naval HQ is coms are cut off they become easy targets for destruction or exploitation.

Unlike PLA, during war, the US can lose the Pentagon and US military won't get phased by the loss and will keep fighting without losing capability.

 

[tower9]

Bro you honestly believe in this Shia conspiracy? Haha! Rumors are that majority of the Hamas leaders converted to shiaism and threw the org under the bus. Yes I do believe Iran is behind it and one doesn´t need to be genius to know. Hamas is funded by Iran and close allies.

What did the Shia crescent really do? to aid Gaza not much really outside of moral support. Honestly not much because they have miscalculate the whole thing. Hezb took ceasefire without making Gaza demand etc etc. Bro they were not even organized enough.

For me they got both defeated and there is no shame in defeat you can learn from it and grow stronger next time but they were both defeated in this round of fighting. They will both survive and recover in the near future we will see what decision they will make because I believe they will sit and wait. When a storm of conquers appear but they themselves should not lift another finger

Hamas never converted to Shiaism. They actually supported the Syrian rebels in the overthrow of Assad.

Honestly this take really just infuriates me and convinces me that Iran should’ve never supported Palestine. Imagine actually shedding blood and resources for someone else and then instead of expressing gratitude, they blame you for the situation they are in.

 

[battalion25]

Hamas never converted to Shiaism. They actually supported the Syrian rebels in the overthrow of Assad.

Honestly this take really just infuriates me and convinces me that Iran should’ve never supported Palestine. Imagine actually shedding blood and resources for someone else and then instead of expressing gratitude, they blame you for the situation they are in.

Oh My god you being stubborn.. What do you actully call help? Did Iran start war for Hamas? The answer is no!

Let me give you a clear example of someone helping someone okay..

Iraq invaded Kuwait once upon of time the US came to Kuwaits aid that was literally speaking intervening.. I am not talking about moral support here and there bro lets be sincere here and cut the BS.

Another example China came to the help of the Northern Koreans against the Americans which resulted in the creation of South and North..

Or Turkey coming to the aid of the rebels against Russia back in 2020 Febuary that was another example.

But I give you moral support or the Yemenites throw moral supports rockets here and there is no aid my dear brother

 

[tower9]

Oh My god you being stubborn.. What do you actully call help? Did Iran start war for Hamas? The answer is no!

Let me give you a clear example of someone helping someone okay..

Iraq invaded Kuwait once upon of time the US came to Kuwaits aid that was literally speaking intervening.. I am not talking about moral support here and there bro lets be sincere here and cut the BS.

Another example China came to the help of the Northern Koreans against the Americans which resulted in the creation of South and North..

Or Turkey coming to the aid of the rebels against Russia back in 2020 Febuary that was another example.

But I give you moral support or the Yemenites throw moral supports rockets here and there is no aid my dear brother

Hezbollah and the Houthis are both proxy allies of Iran, they have taken massive blows, especially Hezbollah, in defense of Gaza. Iran itself has exchanged missiles with Israel. So yes, Iran has directly engaged with Israel and put itself in their crosshairs.

Arabs should be cheering Iran on honestly yet they are just tearing it down with slander.

 

[battalion25]

Hezbollah and the Houthis are both proxy allies of Iran, they have taken massive blows, especially Hezbollah, in defense of Gaza. Iran itself has exchanged missiles with Israel. So yes, Iran has directly engaged with Israel and put itself in their crosshairs.

Arabs should be cheering Iran on honestly yet they are just tearing it down with slander.

Iran has exchanged missiles because its people got killed mann and not because of Hamas.

Nassrallah is real deal tho but he didn´t start war on Israel but Israel started war on them and they didn´t demand their ceasefire to be conditional on Gaza and Hamas but they took separate ceasefire.. Iran told them to likely stand down and they were never the once who opened the front with Israel but Israel did.

If Hezbollah had refused ceasefire before Gaza then that would have been something different.

This is really simple give me substantial help it is that simple. Not something based on moral support or fugazi give me some substantial help.

Example Iran actully give a somwhat half substantial help to Assad from 2011-2015 that is what help is called don´t get it confused as they deployed around 100.000 Iranian militias.

Or What Russia did for Cuba in the Cuba missile crisis that is substantial help

 

[r3alist]

He keeps harping about how the US picks off each country one by one.

Does he not realize this is why China is in extra gears trying to build an alternative financial and tech ecosystem? And why is this so urgent for China? Because it’s been the primary target of the US empire since the last decade!

The reason why the west has been so successful picking off countries one by one is because it was completely dominant financially and technologically where when they placed sanctions on you, it’s a death sentence. When there are alternatives the power of these sanctions shrink dramatically.

I am not Chinese, I have no idea if a Chinese system will be good for others than the Chinese , please understand scepticism is allowed

I have nothing to go on other than the Chinese are self interested....russians did help secure Syria for a period, just for example, you don't need to lose your mind , just saying

If you want an alternative world system you need to convince other nations china is firstly brave and can stand up to the west, secondly that it would be the worth the risk to other nations to go against USA

Then we go back to square one... china has a lot of trade with West it cannot do anything serious etc etc

So then no other nation should risk for Chinese endeavours, they will decide with the hegemon they know versus unknown

 

[liuzhengdong]

@Beijingwalker
I don't want to degrade China achievements infont of USA but let's wait..... it's too early to assume by such small things you are comparable to USA......

You forgot that during the Korean War, the new Chinese regime was only established for one year, and it fought a tie with the world's most powerful superpower.

 

[r3alist]

Let's make it simple for even the deaf and blind to understand.

10 years from now China is as strong as the US in all sectors.

China has created an alternative financial, economic and technological eco-system in the world.

US/West are still sanctioning Iran but Iran just sells its oil/gas to China, buys semicondcutors and jet planes from China. Iran also buys cutting-edge 5th generation planes like J-35 from China to defend its airspace. The sanctions in effect are meaningless and just harm the west as they lose billions in trade with Iran every year that now goes to China.

Why don't people understand a simple thing like this!

This is fantasy, sorry my friend


Chinas modern military and army.... unproven

Versus USA military, has some experience


Zero versus something?


Alternative financial system? That's ONLY meaningful if other nations take the RISK to go with it

If dollar is under external threat truly you don't think USA will do a lot to fight?


The USA I am sorry is ahead for a while yet simply because it's shaping the world and reality as we speak with no cost to it's mainland

Again something versus nothing, what's greater?

 

[r3alist]

China is one of the most misunderstood countries in the world. When you come to really understand the country, its culture, its power and also how deeply strategic it is, you will be amazed. Take its economy for example, the fact that it’s so intertwined with the west where you will see two Starbucks in every corner of Shanghai, insulated itself from escalation in western aggression because the loss of products and supply chains would hurt western economies as much as it hurts Chinas.

Then you think about how China has basically harnessed capitalist mechanisms to create great efficiency and wealth in its economy but most major corporations are still state owned so they supply the state with capital and this keeps income taxes very low to non existent for its people.

And now technological and financial independence is a do or die issue for China and its harnessing its entire society for this and has already made massive breakthroughs in every tech field, this is already creating an alternative reality for the non western world.

You seem unable to understand that being a cheerleader for china is not a law of nature for everyone

Yes the Chinese help the Chinese great

Other nations must pursue their own assesment of China, especially if you want more globally reaching ambition

This is normal self interest

 

[r3alist]

You forgot that during the Korean War, the new Chinese regime was only established for one year, and it fought a tie with the world's most powerful superpower.

How many decades have passed since?

You have a different type of population less used to hard times

They say tough times create tough men

 

[liuzhengdong]

And anotherone...

Be alert to China’s military weaknesses:

-Some of those who want to appease Beijing assert that China’s military superiority would enable it to defeat the US over Taiwan. Like the supposed superior strengths of the Chinese economy, these arguments are based on false premises. The fact is China’s military strength is entirely unproven in practical terms and, like its ally Russia, China has serious military weaknesses.

As the well-regarded Swedish Defence Research Agency has recently observed, a rethink of Moscow’s military capability is clearly warranted to understand the causes of the current malaise in Russia’s military capabilities. The agency says that is needed both for the West to adjust to its demonstrable shortcomings and weaknesses and, equally importantly, to understand their causes and long-term strategic implications. In my view, Western intelligence analysts and policymakers have consistently overrated Russia’s and the Soviet Union’s military strengths. And precisely the same mistakes are now being made about China’s PLA.

What are the reasons for this? First, as Professor Zoltan Barany of the University of Texas has argued: when the adversary is a totalitarian state it is easier to make judgements based on quantitative assessments of counting weapons—tanks, jet fighters, and missiles—and raw manpower, rather than on the qualitative and psychological characteristics that often determine the military’s performance on the battlefield.

Second, because of Russia’s and China’s autocratic systems and pervasive corruption, it has proved difficult for them to bring the kinds of innovation, adaptability, and versatility that tend to produce the best outcomes on the battlefield. The fact is it is easy to concentrate on the material strengths of both China and Russia that can be counted by overhead means of intelligence, while neglecting crucial intangibles such as the quality and experience of their troops.

Third, one of the most serious intangible defects of China’s and Russia’s military forces is that they lack a critical mass of professionally trained NCOs. The dearth of professional non-commissioned officers means that totalitarian armies are unable to fight effectively because NCOs provide the vital link between officers and soldiers about battlefield decision-making. Military command and control culture boils down to trust, including at the operational level.

Trust is not one of the strengths of authoritarian states like China and Russia. As the US Center for Security and Emerging Technology has observed, military command and control in such authoritarian regimes have rigid and fragmented command and control structures because the political leadership does not trust the military leadership, and the military does not trust the rank-and-file. Such systems fail to successfully share information, discourage initiative, and prevent battlefield lessons from informing strategy or being incorporated into future military doctrine. These critical structural deficiencies are part of both China’s and Russia’s military DNA.

Fourth, there has been far too much focus on weapons systems and new technology and endless claims that each new Chinese or Russian weapon is so much superior to those of the US. An example of this recently was when an ‘expert’ in Canberra proclaimed that China’s latest nuclear attack submarine was quieter than the US Virginia class. That sort of ill-informed judgement is typical of those who have never had the security clearance for close-quarter covert submarine operations or an understanding that the US still dominates war under the seas. For example, China’s strategic nuclear submarines (SSBNs) do not provide Beijing with an assured nuclear second-strike force because they are very vulnerable to US attack submarines (SSNs).

Fifth, few in the West pay close attention to the actual composition, training, and preparedness of Russian and Chinese troops themselves or their ability to operate as a joint force outside of artificial planned exercises.

And sixth, authoritarian leaderships in both China and Russia are typified by deep-seated despotism that typifies military politics, and pervasive corruption that saps the fighting strength of their armed forces.

Finally, it is little understood in the West that the oath of allegiance of PLA soldiers is to the Communist Party of China, whereas that of the Soviet Army was to defend the USSR. Chinese troops must waste much of their time studying and regurgitating Communist Party propaganda, which further detracts from their military expertise. Long may they continue to waste their military training spending countless hours on such irrelevant ideology as Xi Jinping’s Thought!

None of this is to argue that the weaknesses and deficiencies of both China and Russia are identical. But the fact remains that much more so than Russia, China has no practical combat experience worth talking about. Its last serious use of force overseas was in 1979 when it sought to teach Vietnam a lesson—and failed miserably.

The believers in Australia of China’s military superiority seem to accept that China has the means and the will to escalate indefinitely and thereby defeat the US and that China is also prepared to pay any price because it enjoys escalatory dominance and cannot be deterred. My view is that the hypothetical of a defeated US in Taiwan (and perhaps at the same time NATO in Europe) increases the risks of nuclear war. Those who argue that we should surrender Taiwan to China or risk nuclear confrontation fail to understand China’s military weaknesses.

In conclusion, we need much more serious and in-depth analyses of China’s military weaknesses and deficiencies. I reject the arguments of those who proclaim that the risks are too high of resisting and deterring a China that allegedly has superior military forces to those of America. Those who carelessly assert that the US is finished, that China inevitably will be the dominant military power over the entire Asia-Pacific region, and that our only survival will be to get out of the ANZUS Alliance need to think again. Their argument is based on very shaky views of China’s military superiority which is a superficial and untested assertion.

The fact is that China shares many of the fatal weaknesses of Russia’s military, which is performing so abysmally in Moscow’s war in Ukraine. I believe that the prudent defensive policy of the US and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region, including Australia, must be to acquire the military capabilities to constrain, check and deter any expansionist ambitions of the PLA.

The Americans have forgotten the prejudice and stereotypes against the Chinese military. In the Korean War, the Chinese military's grassroots units, without wireless communications, were able to independently repel the US military.

The US military's weakness is that it can spend $90,000 to purchase a package of Chinese-made parts worth less than $100.

 

[liuzhengdong]

Yu can have all the shiny weapons but all that doesn't matter if you can't fight as a whole unit while at the same time depending on orders from centralized leadership. The first targets US loves to hit is the enemies ability to communicate with each other and when a military is centralized like the PLA once air force and naval HQ is coms are cut off they become easy targets for destruction or exploitation.

Unlike PLA, during war, the US can lose the Pentagon and US military won't get phased by the loss and will keep fighting without losing capability.

the US can lose the Pentagon and US military won't get phased by the loss and will keep fighting without losing capability.

 

[ety]

How many decades have passed since?

You have a different type of population less used to hard times

They say tough times create tough men

And US hasn't fought a near-peer military esp in tech since WW II too.