U.S is aiming for degrading China's capability such as blowing up a bunch of ships, military production facilities, and their shipyard.
In U.S mind, if they can do that, it is a winner for them.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
U.S is aiming for degrading China's capability such as blowing up a bunch of ships, military production facilities, and their shipyard.
In U.S mind, if they can do that, it is a winner for them.
First off, given China's insane industrial capabilities, even this sort of goal is pretty short term. China's current military is the result of maybe 20 years of semi-focused effort in peacetime. In wartime, if, say 75% of China's front-line combatants are sunk or disabled, I can absolutely see the country rebuild within half a decade.
Second, can the U.S. even bring enough munitions and firepower to penetrate Chinese defenses to do meaningful damage to enough military production facilities and shipyards? I don't see how without utilizing nuclear weapons.
And if by some miracle, the U.S. is somehow able to conventionally knock out China's production facilities for a year or two, but that comes at the cost of 50-75% of the 7th Fleet, then that is no victory. China would come roaring back in a decade for round 2.
Not just him. Simply look where neocons and neolibs congregate and you'll find quite a few who are apparently unaware that China even has nukes. Should an exchange happen, I'd expect countervalue strikes yielding a casualty ratio of 1:1 to be the goal. It isn't the 1970s anymore and a Chinese life is not worth 0.6 of an American life.
On some level, you're preaching to the choir here. I personally have no issues if China decides to pursue 5,000 or even 10,000 active warheads. In fact, I'd encourage it. But the reality is also that even 500 active warheads are enough to ensure MAD with the United States as it is today in 2025. Perhaps you would need 1000 in the 2030s.
Yes, even 1000 would make the most hawkish jingoist have second thoughts. That would be insurance so nobody would be stupid enough to escalate to a "winnable" nuclear war. The key motive is to dissuade such thinking and course of action in desperation. But as it stands, minimum credible deterrence is not having the desired effect when suggest tactical nuke usage to counter the conventional disparity in China's periphery.
The US has a lot more military experience, a lot more 5th gen planes, 11 aircraft carriers, they also have access to ally bases, to say the US absolutely can’t win if war started today is just wrong
when I did say nuclear exchange? I just said if war happened today the US has more of a possibility of winning
how so? Why do you think the US can’t win if war happened today.
We’re just going to need to agree to disagree but simply put the US still has the ability to beat China if war happened today, past 2027 that gets much harder, and if we’re talking about nuclear exchange than both China and the US are destroyed
There was a time when I would've told you: "good thing these idiots aren't in charge." That is still more or less the case, at least I think or "hope" so.
However, it'd be outright irresponsible to count on "hope," especially once we consider who some of the men with "launch authority" are these days.
What is "absolutely win"?
Achieving the objective of Taiwanese independence?
Do you think the US can do this without heavy losses? If they lose 75% of F-22, 1-2 CVN, is this still a win?
This is the real question.
France "won" against China in Vietnam, but the price was heavy, where is the French colonial empire now?
Achieving the objective of Taiwanese independence?
Do you think the US can do this without heavy losses? If they lose 75% of F-22, 1-2 CVN, is this still a win?
This is the real question.
France "won" against China in Vietnam, but the price was heavy, where is the French colonial empire now?
No, I agree with your assessment. We, the public, do not have access to all the information and thus I cannot confidently say that the PLA is assured victory in the case of a confrontation right now. I don't know the odds so I will not comment on it as it is nothing but speculation.
The nuclear exchange scenario was not a reaponse to you but to the other poster's hypothetical. I outline a mindset held by certain overzealous Americans and what course of action they endorse.
Exactly. The current US administration does not inspire confidence when it comes to rational thought. For all we know, the Annoying Orange will initiate nuclear war to pump and dump the stock market.
"Short-legged" 5th-generation fighters. They lack the range needed for the West Pacific scenario. Furthermore, this won't be what truly wins the US the war.
11 CVNs mean nothing when they could deploy half that number in a single theater, considering the different timeframes for each to be deployed. Furthermore, 6 or 11 CVNs won't make a difference because China has land-based airpower, which will be a game-changer in the theater, and only China has that because of its geostrategic advantage.
The advantages in any scenario are tilted toward China, despite agreeing with its arguments that we shouldn't underestimate American capabilities.