PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

PLAwatcher12 said:

Because I have been banned before twice and I don’t want to do anything to risk getting banned permanently. If I knew I wouldn’t have a possibly to get banned again I would but for now I’ll just agree to disagree and stick to my original point of it’s more likely if war started today the US could win than they would in 2027

Click to expand...

You'll get a warning before getting banned.

PLAwatcher12 said:

This is the last time since I feel it’s getting off topic and don’t want to be banned again.

Click to expand...

This is not off topic. This is your excuse for when you can't hold your water anymore.

PLAwatcher12 said:

But yes the US war fighting experience is only against terrorists and insurgents but that does give them stress testing and even if it’s not what modern war it was still combat, China doesn’t really have that.

Click to expand...

No, American experience is negative. It teaches them that combat is at a low intensity so it lulls them into a false sense and expectation. Intense combat drills again peer teams are the only real simulator to peer level war.

PLAwatcher12 said:

the US has alot more than just subsonic and short range glide bombs, while that’s the majority that doesn’t mean their useless

Click to expand...

So not a lot, a little. They're not useless but they're not nearly as useful as Chinese missiles. You don't have to be useless to lose.

PLAwatcher12 said:

The US has the ability to use ally bases.

Click to expand...

The ones that are on fire? You failed to catch my rebuttal to this in my first reply?

PLAwatcher12 said:

ally stockpile wouldn’t run out within a month

Click to expand...

They'd probably be blown up and last a few hours but where's the month number coming from? We'll fight forever for our land.

PLAwatcher12 said:

Again like I said multiple times that I don’t want to get banned not that I can’t back it up

Click to expand...

OK whatever. Take your time, go ask your professors, put them on the spot to explain to you why the sun hasn't set on the West yet.

PLAwatcher12 said:

and I don’t think I ever said the US would win,

Click to expand...

Wow... you are so bad at trying to get away with stuff...
"if the US decides to go to war with China they could absolutely win"

"I just said if war happened today the US has more of a possibility of winning"

PLAwatcher12 said:

I just said it’s alot more likely they would if war started today than they would in 2027

Click to expand...

You mean a lot more likely for the US to lose as the day goes on.

PLAwatcher12 said:

Because I have been banned before twice and I don’t want to do anything to risk getting banned permanently. If I knew I wouldn’t have a possibly to get banned again I would but for now I’ll just agree to disagree and stick to my original point of it’s more likely if war started today the US could win than they would in 2027

Click to expand...

This is not a flagship thread, and you have a moderator just tell you that you would be warned before you are banned again.

Please answer my question:
a.) What do you consider is "winning" for the U.S.
b.) How will the U.S. win.

And you should also think WHY you hold the view that the U.S. will win.

Heresy said:

This is not a flagship thread, and you have a moderator just tell you that you would be warned before you are banned again.

Please answer my question:
a.) What do you consider is "winning" for the U.S.
b.) How will the U.S. win.

And you should also think WHY you hold the view that the U.S. will win.

Click to expand...

LMFAO @PLAwatcher12 went from:
"if the US decides to go to war with China they could absolutely win" to

"I just said if war happened today the US has more of a possibility of winning" to

"I don’t think I ever said the US would win"

manqiangrexue said:

LMFAO @PLAwatcher12 went from:
"if the US decides to go to war with China they could absolutely win" to

"I just said if war happened today the US has more of a possibility of winning" to

"I don’t think I ever said the US would win"

Click to expand...

Truthfully speaking, I am under no illusions that if a war broke out tomorrow that the PRC would necessarily "win". I think what would likely happen is something of a longish ceasefire/cold war after the U.S. shows itself incapable of successfully prosecuting a conflict against the PRC that deals any sort of significant or strategic damage due to rapid attrition of it's offensive platforms and munitions as well as a demonstrated inability of replenishing them quickly.

I think we have to keep in mind that the U.S. "not winning" is not necessarily the PRC "winning" and not necessarily the U.S. "losing" either, depending on how one frames "victory".

Heresy said:

Truthfully speaking, I am under no illusions that if a war broke out tomorrow that the PRC would necessarily "win". I think what would likely happen is something of a longish ceasefire/cold war after the U.S. shows itself incapable of successfully prosecuting a conflict against the PRC that deals any sort of significant or strategic damage due to rapid attrition of it's offensive platforms and munitions as well as a demonstrated inability of replenishing them quickly.

I think we have to keep in mind that the U.S. "not winning" is not necessarily the PRC "winning" and not necessarily the U.S. "losing" either, depending on how one frames "victory".

Click to expand...

If the PLA is sent out, we smoke it with missiles, suppress it with air strikes, and land troops to take control of the island. That's how we win and if America can't stop that, then that's how it loses.

manqiangrexue said:

If the PLA is sent out, we smoke it with missiles, suppress it with air strikes, and land troops to take control of the island. That's how we win and if America can't stop that, then that's how it loses.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about a Taiwan conflict specifically. Sure, if the victory condition for both countries is control of Taiwan, the U.S. loses every day of the week that ends 'day'. But I think we both know that any U.S. Sino conflict, including one that involves Taiwan as a trigger, will have the objective ultimately be destroying the capacity of the opponent to engage in further geopolitical competition for a certain arbitrary number of years.

I mean the US is a military power so shouldn't be underestimated BUT there is a reason why they are desperate to get out of the Middle East, is not just because the Pacific, is also because their capabilities have been degrading in the low intensity warfare in the Middle East while everyone else is literally training and building to fight a major war.

manqiangrexue said:

No it doesn't. It has no experience fighting peers. You may work at an animal shelter with stray cats but if you think you can take that "experience" to wrangle a tiger, you're gonna get mauled, even worse than if you entered cautiously assuming you know nothing about tigers.

Click to expand...

This is one of the best analogies I've seen!

tokenanalyst said:

I mean the US is a military power so shouldn't be underestimated BUT there is a reason why they are desperate to get out of the Middle East, is not just because the Pacific, is also because their capabilities have been degrading in the low intensity warfare in the Middle East while everyone else is literally training and building to fight a major war.

Click to expand...

Defense system is not a magical weapon. As long as the missile can do swerve or do unpredictable maneuver, and avoid travelling in a traditional ballistic arc trajectory, there is no guarantee the defense can knock it down. Supersonic ballistic weapon can penetrate the defense system if it meets this criteria too. not just hypersonic