Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

B.I.B.

Captain
vincent said:
Nope, there is no deployed ICBM-range hypersonic missiles
Click to expand...
Hmm.. It shouldn't be too difficult for China to develop one. The technology to make one is already here.Although it lacked the maneuverability of todays hypersonic missiles, from the 60's until its retirement in the 80's the US had intercontinental hypersonic missiles with the Titan.
 
H

H2O

Junior Member
Registered Member
Moonscape said:
The real lesson here is that the only things the US elites are afraid of are nuclear weapons, since anything less will only kill grunts and not them.

So China needs to build more nukes, which they are doing.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. The beauty of being insane is that fear won't register with at lot.


B.I.B. said:
Of more immediate concern, what are the chances of the US trying something if they think the KMT are going to win next years elections?
Click to expand...
High probability should their internal polling indicates a scenario they're not happy with. No one should be guessing on whether IF it will happen but WHEN it will happen and what the skullduggery would look like. I'd like to know how Japan's participation would look like.
 
F

fatzergling

New Member
Registered Member
H2O said:
I doubt it. The beauty of being insane is that fear won't register with at lot.



High probability should their internal polling indicates a scenario they're not happy with. No one should be guessing on whether IF it will happen but WHEN it will happen and what the skullduggery would look like. I'd like to know how Japan's participation would look like.
Click to expand...
You gotta think like the USG. If they die, they will go to heaven while the Chinese are condemned to hell. That is the beauty of using religion to unite the nation. For what is death in the face of eternal life?
 
S

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
21st century tactics.
Hit the mainland? China is the manufacturing capital of the world.

Absolutely flood the US with super dollars and destroy confidence in the currency.

Arm all criminal gangs with MANPADs, suicide drones, ATGMs, body armor. Tie down National Guardsmen to create a manpower shortage for any expeditionary operations.

Launch massive scale DDoS attacks to disrupt National communications.

Ensure you are able to launch 9/11 style attacks.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Colonel
Registered Member
plawolf said:
The US would desperately want to do just that, and this would actually be a huge part of the reason why many in the US is currently pushing for war - so they can roll back China’s economic and technological development by a few years or ideally decades to buy themselves more breathing time.

However, the key issue is just how does the US plan on achieving that kind of damage against China?

In Iraq, it had total air and naval dominance, and safe haven air bases to operate from within good operating range of targets.

In the pacific, it’s air bases in the first island chain cannot expect to survive the opening salvos. Bases in mainland Japan and SK might be spared initially, but will also get taken out if they are used to try to attack China. The USN carriers will need to stay well back else they run the serious risk of eating massed AShBMs. So the only reliable means to attack would be cruise missiles.

The USN can use its SSGNs and later model Virginias, but those have limited payloads and long reload cycles, since they cannot rearm in SK or Japan as doing so will be serving them up on a platter for the PLA to hit them peer-side. The USN can also use its surface fleet VLS for cruise missiles, but again, it will be a long replay cycle to go back to Pearl and come back. In addition, every cell used for tomahawks is one cell less for SAMs.

The USAF can also use its B52s to spam cruise missiles from Pearl, but they would risk getting ambushed by J20s doing that.

But even assuming none of the launch platforms gets intercept, the maximum daily peak launch capacity of both the USAF and USN would be within the intercept capacity of the PLAN and PLAAF as well as PLA IADS.

Cruise missiles work best when the enemy do not have air cover. If the target has AWACS and massed fighter air cover, cruise missiles are very easy to intercept, especially over water.

This is probably the chief consideration for China working on putting AAMs on conventional UCAVs, so they can intercept cruise missiles and not need to overly burden manned fighters.

So, with no real ability to overwhelm Chinese defences, the key deciding factor will be attrition and who has more missiles, and this is why all the think thanks are warning the US will run out of missiles weeks into a war with China.
Click to expand...
I believe that this discussion (and the very question by @B.I.B. which initiated it) revolves around the core issue that China is facing WRT hypothetical but highly probable full-scale conflict in the WestPac region - Strategic depth.

Unlike the US located at the other side of the Pacific - Unfortunately, geography is not working in China's favor.

Until all of the following three prerequisites are met, China will never have a true geographically-based strategic depth of her own, and China will always have her population centers exposed bare to threats coming from the east and southeast:
1. Taiwan finally reunified,
2. Ryukyu fully liberated, and
3. Japan, South Korea & the Philippines completely neutralized.

In order to address this, China will have to establish her strategic depth of her own - artificially.

China's artificial strategic depth has to encompass not just the entirety of the FIC Belt, but also large portions of the SIC Belt too. In the sky, on the surface and underwater - China's artificial strategic depth will need to be able to cover all three of these domain too.

For this to happen, the PLAN, PLAAF and PLARF require huge expansions and upgrades. However, as the WestPac is practically vast span of empty ocean with islands dotting the landscape, the PLAN & PLANAF will be the decisive player, while simultaneously in close coordination, cooperation and management with the PLAAF and PLARF.
 
Last edited:
vincent

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
ACuriousPLAFan said:
I believe that this discussion (and the very question by @B.I.B. which initiated it) revolves around the core issue that China is facing WRT hypothetical but highly probable full-scale conflict in the WestPac region - Strategic depth.

Unlike the US located at the other side of the Pacific - Unfortunately, geography is not working in China's favor.

Until all of the following three prerequisites are met, China will never have a true geographically-based strategic depth of her own, and China will always have her population centers exposed bare to threats coming from the east and southeast:
1. Taiwan finally reunified,
2. Ryukyu fully liberated, and
3. Japan, South Korea & the Philippines completely neutralized.

In order to address this, China will have to establish her strategic depth of her own - artificially.

China's artificial strategic depth has to encompass not just the entirety of the FIC Belt, but also large portions of the SIC Belt too. In the sky, on the surface and underwater - China's artificial strategic depth will need to be able to cover all three of these domain too.

For this to happen, the PLAN, PLAAF and PLARF require huge expansions and upgrades. However, as the WestPac is practically vast span of empty ocean with islands dotting the landscape, the PLAN & PLANAF will be the decisive player, while simultaneously in close coordination, cooperation and management with the PLAAF and PLARF.
Click to expand...
PLA just need to acquire tons and tons of cheap precision munitions before hostilities start. When shits hit the fan, bomb everything on the First Island Chain.
 
M

Minm

Junior Member
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
I believe that this discussion (and the very question by @B.I.B. which initiated it) revolves around the core issue that China is facing WRT hypothetical but highly probable full-scale conflict in the WestPac region - Strategic depth.

Unlike the US located at the other side of the Pacific - Unfortunately, geography is not working in China's favor.

Until all of the following three prerequisites are met, China will never have a true geographically-based strategic depth of her own, and China will always have her population centers exposed bare to threats coming from the east and southeast:
1. Taiwan finally reunified,
2. Ryukyu fully liberated, and
3. Japan, South Korea & the Philippines completely neutralized.

In order to address this, China will have to establish her strategic depth of her own - artificially.

China's artificial strategic depth has to encompass not just the entirety of the FIC Belt, but also large portions of the SIC Belt too. In the sky, on the surface and underwater - China's artificial strategic depth will need to be able to cover all three of these domain too.

For this to happen, the PLAN, PLAAF and PLARF require huge expansions and upgrades. However, as the WestPac is practically vast span of empty ocean with islands dotting the landscape, the PLAN & PLANAF will be the decisive player, while simultaneously in close coordination, cooperation and management with the PLAAF and PLARF.
Click to expand...
4. Liberation of Guam, Saipan and Hawaii

Hawaii was illegally annexed in 1899 after a Crimea little green men style operation by the US.

If there is a Pacific war, the US can't get away with an illegal invasion of China without paying with territorial concessions. You don't fight a war which may cost millions of lives unless you can at least aim to permanently weaken the aggressor. Western Germany was occupied for years after WW1 as punishment for losing the war. Following that precedent, the US should lose access to the western Pacific if it loses
 
F

fatzergling

New Member
Registered Member
Minm said:
4. Liberation of Guam, Saipan and Hawaii

Hawaii was illegally annexed in 1899 after a Crimea little green men style operation by the US.

If there is a Pacific war, the US can't get away with an illegal invasion of China without paying with territorial concessions. You don't fight a war which may cost millions of lives unless you can at least aim to permanently weaken the aggressor. Western Germany was occupied for years after WW1 as punishment for losing the war. Following that precedent, the US should lose access to the western Pacific if it loses
Click to expand...

This is the ultimate stretch goal. Keep in mind you are entering US core territory which risks nuclear argemeddon. Better have the nukes ready by then.

However, if WW3 begins, China can and must rip away all US influence in the western Pacific as compensation for the horrific loses, including Philippines, SK and Japan, much like how Germany was stripped of it's overseas possessions following WWI
 
M

MrGoose

New Member
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
I believe that this discussion (and the very question by @B.I.B. which initiated it) revolves around the core issue that China is facing WRT hypothetical but highly probable full-scale conflict in the WestPac region - Strategic depth.

Unlike the US located at the other side of the Pacific - Unfortunately, geography is not working in China's favor.

Until all of the following three prerequisites are met, China will never have a true geographically-based strategic depth of her own, and China will always have her population centers exposed bare to threats coming from the east and southeast:
1. Taiwan finally reunified,
2. Ryukyu fully liberated, and
3. Japan, South Korea & the Philippines completely neutralized.

In order to address this, China will have to establish her strategic depth of her own - artificially.

China's artificial strategic depth has to encompass not just the entirety of the FIC Belt, but also large portions of the SIC Belt too. In the sky, on the surface and underwater - China's artificial strategic depth will need to be able to cover all three of these domain too.

For this to happen, the PLAN, PLAAF and PLARF require huge expansions and upgrades. However, as the WestPac is practically vast span of empty ocean with islands dotting the landscape, the PLAN & PLANAF will be the decisive player, while simultaneously in close coordination, cooperation and management with the PLAAF and PLARF.
Click to expand...
The PLA needs strategic magazine depth before strategic geographical depth. For all the strategic depth that Ukraine has, it has been the limitless munitions and funding that the west is providing it that is backstopping their war effort.

First the PLA needs the munitions to defeat the US 7th fleet, the JSDF, US Forces Korea, US Forces Japan and the ROK military too i.e. all US-aligned forces in the Western Pacific.

Then it needs the munitions to defeat the rest of the US military and forces aligned with her, with capacity to spare.

And it needs the nuclear magazine depth to credibly go toe to toe with the US.

And only then can China start thinking about how it will reshape the western Pacific because you need to consider any war with the US as a fight up to, or to death. China is the US's #1 strategic rival, in a way that only the USSR has come close to and India has the potential to.

In order to accomplish such a goal, it would take a Chinese economy capable of trillions of dollars of military buildup in order to build up such magazine depth, and also be able of outgrowing the US's strategic depth.

I think the PLA would have to at least equal the US military in size, and have at least an order of magnitude more ballistic and cruise missiles to do such a thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top