Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

B.I.B. said:

Perhaps you're right, but aren't theshipyards in China vulnerable? Take them and related industries out and they won't be able to fix or replace damaged and sunk naval units let alone cargo ships.

Click to expand...

There are few enough major shipyards in China that they could reasonably come under attack. Ditto for major shipyards in America. Either side may devote drones/long range munitions to try and penetrate what will likely be signficant air defense around them.

But China will hardly construct any vessels that need years to come into action once war starts. Instead, it'll all be stuff that can be out in weeks to months, like submarines, frigates, missile boats etc.

Trying to build multiple supercarriers during wartime seems stupid as it would be so easy to sabotage them.

B.I.B. said:

It won't be easy, but they will certainly not be as constrained as the Russians initially were in the Ukranian conflict.

Click to expand...

This isn't a matter of them being constrained, but whether they have the ability to even do it, because the air defense network of PLA is far greater and stronger than that of Ukraine and the ability to hitback at US bases and platforms is also many, many times greater.

B.I.B. said:

Perhaps you're right, but aren't theshipyards in China vulnerable? Take them and related industries out and they won't be able to fix or replace damaged and sunk naval units let alone cargo ships.

Click to expand...

USN carriers battle groups aren't even safe within the 2nd island chain. What makes you think they'll be able to enter the first island chain? lol

Biscuits said:

There are few enough major shipyards in China that they could reasonably come under attack. Ditto for major shipyards in America. Either side may devote drones/long range munitions to try and penetrate what will likely be signficant air defense around them.

But China will hardly construct any vessels that need years to come into action once war starts. Instead, it'll all be stuff that can be out in weeks to months, like submarines, frigates, missile boats etc.

Trying to build multiple supercarriers during wartime seems stupid as it would be so easy to sabotage them.

Click to expand...

It'll take quite an amount of munitions to take em out, given their size. Most of the pads are also usually made from 40 or 50Mpa concrete so will take quite some beating too. The yards itself while large, is mostly where final assembly is done, most of the buildings are like empty space, and especially for China, if you take out the many gantry cranes, or the dry docks etc, it'll only be a matter of months to pour concrete and get new equipment in to get everything back up and running again. Also, what you see on the map as the battery limits isn't exactly all the yard. There'll be a plethora of satellite yards in the surrounding areas doing the fabrication etc. In my opinion, it'll be pretty stupid to target these facilities in a short war given how quickly they can be rebuilt and how much munitions you would need. Taking out these stuff in the US though might take quite a while longer to fix given where these gantry cranes are made lol.....

B.I.B. said:

I worry in the conflict between China and the US over Taiwan, the US use the opportunity to try and bomb/destroy the living bejeezus "out of China's infrastructure as they did in Iraq. The West is trying its best to avoid attacking Russia proper in this conflict which won't be the case in a war against China where the aim is to destroy China's industrial production. It does not appear to me That China can retaliate in a similar fashion.

Click to expand...

why is the US so scared not to even touch an inch of Russian soil despite Russia's performance in this current war but will go apeshit on China when AR happens? What is the difference between the two conflicts that can warrant such drastically different responses?
It just seems strange that US won't even ramp up production to hand Russia a decisive defeat but will go total-war over a country that has a much larger economy and production potential compared to Russia.

One explanation i can think of is US internal politics. Namely, a strong contingent of Republicans are still somewhat warm to Russia and would prefer not escalating the war. Recent Republican pollings showed that nearly 50% of Republicans oppose the current Ukrainian intervention, as mild as it is, and want to end aid to Ukraine. As long as this faction is embedded into US politics, there will be an opposition voice over further escalation.

However, there is no such lobby for China. As a result, unchecked escalation leading to WW3 is a very likely possibility and should be kept in mind at all times. Even Chinese Americans are very divided and are unlikely to convince the USG of any position.

Therefore, if China attempts AR, it should prepare for the worst.

fatzergling said:

why is the US so scared not to even touch an inch of Russian soil despite Russia's performance in this current war but will go apeshit on China when AR happens? What is the difference between the two conflicts that can warrant such drastically different responses?
It just seems strange that US won't even ramp up production to hand Russia a decisive defeat but will go total-war over a country that has a much larger economy and production potential compared to Russia.

One explanation i can think of is US internal politics. Namely, a strong contingent of Republicans are still somewhat warm to Russia and would prefer not escalating the war. Recent Republican pollings showed that nearly 50% of Republicans oppose the current Ukrainian intervention, as mild as it is, and want to end aid to Ukraine. As long as this faction is embedded into US politics, there will be an opposition voice over further escalation.

However, there is no such lobby for China. As a result, unchecked escalation leading to WW3 is a very likely possibility and should be kept in mind at all times. Even Chinese Americans are very divided and are unlikely to convince the USG of any position.

Therefore, if China attempts AR, it should prepare for the worst.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

China has enough nukes to annihilate all of the US economic centers already. Even one thermonuclear warhead can wipe out 1/3rd of the San Francisco Bay Area and eliminate 1T of US GDP instantly. But god help us if we ever reach that stage. The real observation is how US elites and their blocs can impact a potential AR.

We should not underestimate Russian soft power and propaganda, even if Russia struggles to make progress in the Donbass. Russian news had us convinced that Ukraine would be crushed in 96 hours, to the point where USG was setting up a Ukrainian exile government in the first week of the war. Now, Russian soft power comes in the form of infiltrating US conservatives, in particular MAGA isolationists who believe the US is too poor to finance war over the world. Partially as a result of this bloc, the US has been unwilling to supply Ukraine, support Ukraine, or even send "volunteers" to assist the Ukrainians. As a result, we see this stalemate where Russia fails to capture key strategic position but Ukraine cannot expel Russia from it's land. Given Russia's performance, if the US is willing, this war could be over by 2023.

How is this relevant to China? The first thing to observe is American foreign politics are subservient to domestic blocs. Americans of course care more about what happens to them than in a land that they can't locate on a map, and expect their politicians to deliver. Lately, "looking tough" is all the rage for Democrats and Republicans alike, leading to a no step back foreign policy that hurts the US's bottom line but fulfills the purpose of "looking tough". However, due to MAGA isolationists, the US will not endlessly escalate the war between Russia and Ukraine. However, China has no such bloc in power, with both Republicans and Democrats scheming to annihilate China if possible. Therefore, if AR breaks out, US domestic politics will force US to escalate intervention in the conflict until WW3 begins. In that case, even God cannot save us.

fatzergling said:

why is the US so scared not to even touch an inch of Russian soil despite Russia's performance in this current war but will go apeshit on China when AR happens? What is the difference between the two conflicts that can warrant such drastically different responses?
It just seems strange that US won't even ramp up production to hand Russia a decisive defeat but will go total-war over a country that has a much larger economy and production potential compared to Russia.

One explanation i can think of is US internal politics. Namely, a strong contingent of Republicans are still somewhat warm to Russia and would prefer not escalating the war. Recent Republican pollings showed that nearly 50% of Republicans oppose the current Ukrainian intervention, as mild as it is, and want to end aid to Ukraine. As long as this faction is embedded into US politics, there will be an opposition voice over further escalation.

However, there is no such lobby for China. As a result, unchecked escalation leading to WW3 is a very likely possibility and should be kept in mind at all times. Even Chinese Americans are very divided and are unlikely to convince the USG of any position.

Therefore, if China attempts AR, it should prepare for the worst.

Click to expand...

I can think of 3 possible reasons why the USA will try to suppress China's rise at all costs, even if it means a direct war between the 2 superpowers:
1, existential threat to the USA in terms of ideology and form of government. Communism vs Liberal Democracy, State-controlled Economy vs Unbridled Capitalism, Meritocracy vs Plutocracy, internal racial unity vs racial division, and Win-win diplomacy vs Zero-sum game mindset. The USA finds itself losing its luster and appeal to the rest of the world.
2, peer contest. first time in history that a superpower met its equal. The USA is now in a state of uncertainty, nervousness, and anxiety facing a fast-rising peer that can challenge it in the economy, a form of government, high-tech industries, and military developments. The USA does not call China a pacing threat for no reason.
3, The US is fearful of losing its hegemony and number 1 top-dog position to China (not to Russia which is not strong enough to challenge the US in terms of population and economy). So it is in the US interests to start a war with China when the former is still having a distinct advantage. Further down the road, say within 10 years, that advantage might be gone forever. Hence you see the US antagonizing China in every sphere and move.

I suspect there is a 4th reason, but it is politically incorrect to spell it out. It has something to do with skin color, the so-called yellow peril.
China's counter-moves?? Strategic patience, further economic development and integration with friendly countries, and nuclear arsenal buildup.

B.I.B. said:

Perhaps you're right, but aren't theshipyards in China vulnerable? Take them and related industries out and they won't be able to fix or replace damaged and sunk naval units let alone cargo ships.

Click to expand...

I think the understanding would be that if they attacked China proper, China would launch attacks on American cities by hypersonic weapons and WWIII can commence. Whatever happens, China cannot allow it to become a situation where China only attacks US military installations in Asia while America attacks China itself causing the resolution to end with America's economy fully intact while China has to rebuild. This is how you end the conflict with a WWII-like effect, with the US in a good position to extend leadership and China picking up the pieces. Nuclear war before this; American cities must burn if America strikes China. That way both countries can rebuild from rubble and we all know who would destroy every other country in a building contest.

manqiangrexue said:

I think the understanding would be that if they attacked China proper, China would launch attacks on American cities by hypersonic weapons and WWIII can commence. Whatever happens, China cannot allow it to become a situation where China only attacks US military installations in Asia while America attacks China itself causing the resolution to end with America's economy fully intact while China has to rebuild. This is how you end the conflict with a WWII-like effect, with the US in a good position to extend leadership and China picking up the pieces. Nuclear war before this; American cities must burn if America strikes China. That way both countries can rebuild from rubble and we all know who would destroy every other country in a building contest.

Click to expand...

That’s too extreme. There is no need to risk MAD.
China can build enough cheap but effective munitions (i.e. hundreds of thousands of piston-based cruise missiles) to wipe out all American bases and Japanese/Korean airports on the First Island Chain, maybe bomb Hawaii and Guam as well.

Without refueling aircrafts from airfields located on the First Island Chain, American strategic bombers will struggle to get in range of China to fire off cruise missiles.