PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC


FairAndUnbiased

Major
Registered Member
Given that we're looking at depression-era levels of economic decline (25-35% for both China and the US), we'll likely see both governments printing money to keep companies on life support until they have reconfigured their supply chains.

After all, we just saw this happen during the pandemic when companies and people were paid just to stay home.
during the pandemic they printed money knowing that they could still import with those dollars. what are they going to buy when they can't import anything with the dollars printed?

China would have idle production capacity so money printing works, US doesn't so money printing doesn't work.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
during the pandemic they printed money knowing that they could still import with those dollars. what are they going to buy when they can't import anything with the dollars printed?

China would have idle production capacity so money printing works, US doesn't so money printing doesn't work.

It's obvious that US money would be targeted on replacing Chinese imports, whether that is directly government-driven or from private initiatives.

It's really painful and expensive, which is part of the reason why it hasn't happened. But it is doable.
 

Michaelsinodef

Junior Member
Registered Member
It's obvious that US money would be targeted on replacing Chinese imports, whether that is directly government-driven or from private initiatives.

It's really painful and expensive, which is part of the reason why it hasn't happened. But it is doable.
It is in theory possible, but nowhere as easy or quick to do as you think it might be.

In fact, it might be so painful and hard/long process that we might even see breakdown in society and civil war, even if not, then there would still be large scale unrest, and a need for government rationing of stuff.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Major
Registered Member
It's obvious that US money would be targeted on replacing Chinese imports, whether that is directly government-driven or from private initiatives.

It's really painful and expensive, which is part of the reason why it hasn't happened. But it is doable.
No it's not. I provided actual proof and historical precedent: YMTC supply chain audit and Russian sanctions related inflation. And these are small compared to replacing the entire economy. Further proof: Saturn 5 plans being lost and unable to be recreated.

Targeting money where? They can't even fully identify all Huawei equipment, and that's a branded product with giant logos on it, in peace time, over years. Good luck identifying the parts of PCBs or mechanical assemblies with no logo or only serial numbers, without vendor cooperation.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
What's even funnier is that everyone focuses on US-held dollars while forgetting to mention the dollars that other countries/individuals/banks hold in their reserves lol

This is where dollar being the reserve currency is a doubled edged sword. The more you printed in peacetime, the worse it will get in wartime when everyone suddenly uses their "wealth" (dollars) to try to buy anything at the world market (or whatever is left of it by then)

So if US-held dollars alone are enough to cause hyperinflation in the US when the war happens, you can imagine what will happen when the rest of the world uses their dollars as well. I won't even mention the diplomatic/political clusterf that will happen as a result of that

That's why I said economic discussion is not suitable for this thread. Things are much more complex than simply saying "just invest on industry and infrastructure bro, wartime production, lets go!"
 

lzmfVw

New Member
Registered Member
It really hasn't. China can get all of the necessary resources from land and sea routes it can control. Any US effort to cut off China will also cut off japan and SK and other of its "allies"

Why don't you be a little more clear. What can US cut off China aside from just a decoupling with the West? What resources can US cut off from China?
I see where you are coming from. The general argument I see here is that China is an auturky. My argument is that a China that has access to international markets and can chose to trade or not trade as she pleases is in a significant more powerful position that one that is cut off from international trade. I feel this thesis is strong enough having being validated by China's reform and opening up, so much so that I put this under the victory condition of a peer conflict. A China that is forced to be an auturky and rely on immediate land routes is arguably worse off than the status quo.

Also, not directed to anyone specifically, but assertions that the west cannot and will not do something are not very interesting because they are not sound basis for planning. Any serious planning makes rooms for contingencies, even notional ones. If the assertion is that NATO would not get into a peer conflict on the side of the U.S. because the price is too high, and then NATO does, then what? If the assertion is that the West will collapse, and then it doesn't, then what? The information gained from the original assertion is minimal, and the downside of getting it wrong can be catastrophic. I hope I don't have to belabor this point.

So what does all this all mean?
It means that - to be clear - if China is forced to fight, then it needs to fight.
It means that if China can fight at a time of its choosing, then it needs to understand what its victory conditions are, have the procurement strategy and control enough of the international security environment to realize it.
More concretely, it means deciding between building 6 aircraft carriers or 12 aircraft carriers. It means building or not building an expeditionary force. It means whether or not have overseas military bases, where, and how many, etc...
 

tphuang

Brigadier
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I see where you are coming from. The general argument I see here is that China is an auturky. My argument is that a China that has access to international markets and can chose to trade or not trade as she pleases is in a significant more powerful position that one that is cut off from international trade. I feel this thesis is strong enough having being validated by China's reform and opening up, so much so that I put this under the victory condition of a peer conflict. A China that is forced to be an auturky and rely on immediate land routes is arguably worse off than the status quo.

Also, not directed to anyone specifically, but assertions that the west cannot and will not do something are not very interesting because they are not sound basis for planning. Any serious planning makes rooms for contingencies, even notional ones. If the assertion is that NATO would not get into a peer conflict on the side of the U.S. because the price is too high, and then NATO does, then what? If the assertion is that the West will collapse, and then it doesn't, then what? The information gained from the original assertion is minimal, and the downside of getting it wrong can be catastrophic. I hope I don't have to belabor this point.

So what does all this all mean?
It means that - to be clear - if China is forced to fight, then it needs to fight.
It means that if China can fight at a time of its choosing, then it needs to understand what its victory conditions are, have the procurement strategy and control enough of the international security environment to realize it.
More concretely, it means deciding between building 6 aircraft carriers or 12 aircraft carriers. It means building or not building an expeditionary force. It means whether or not have overseas military bases, where, and how many, etc...
Obviously, China should avoid a peer war if it can. However, by what we've seen with Russia/Ukraine, Western countries will try to apply severe sanctions on China if it invades Taiwan. And the reality is, no Chinese gov't can stay in power if they do not prevent Taiwan from crossing the red lines.

So yes, any conflict between China and US would involve significant economic pain for the world. So, that will not be how China determines whether it won a conflict. Also, NATO is basically controlled by America. However, most NATO countries are too far for westpac to be of meaningful help.. As such, NATO's response to a China invasion is irrelevant from military point of view.

Will China seek to continue trading with continental Europe? Of course it will. The quicker it can settle the Taiwan situation the better. And if it can win a peer conflict in westpac, then that effectively allows China to be the region hegemon that American elites fear. There are certain economic opportunities as China would then re-orient more of its economy to Asia. The countries in East Asia will most likely be integrated into China's supply chain and use RMB as the default currency. This is a large and booming population and economic area. In the long run, continental Europe cannot ignore trading with China if China has all the advanced technology and supply chain. That's why American elites have been warning about losing the tech race to China for several years.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
And if it can win a peer conflict in westpac, then that effectively allows China to be the region hegemon that American elites fear. There are certain economic opportunities as China would then re-orient more of its economy to Asia. The countries in East Asia will most likely be integrated into China's supply chain and use RMB as the default currency.

The countries in East Asia are already integrated into China's supply chain today.

And today, we also see the Asian currencies have a higher correlation and follow the RMB more than the USD, as per the Economist.

These relationships will only deepen into the future.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
No it's not. I provided actual proof and historical precedent: YMTC supply chain audit and Russian sanctions related inflation. And these are small compared to replacing the entire economy. Further proof: Saturn 5 plans being lost and unable to be recreated.

YMTC is not representative as its equipment suppliers were/are very dependent on foreign suppliers past the 2 tier. Questioning foreign suppliers on a voluntary basis is going to be slow, so I'm not surprised it took a year.

In comparison, the default position of say Intel is that all of its semiconductor requirement was developed in the West with very little to no Chinese input.

So it's a lot easier to conduct a supply chain audit in such a situation. Plus in wartime, such supply chain audits will have the force of US law behind them and are urgent because companies all along the supply chain are scared that the production will ground to a halt.

So I don't see your assertion that it would take US companies 5 years just to conduct a supply chain audit as valid.

---

As for inflation, it was a problem even before the Russia sanctions. In the event of a US-China war and economic decoupling, yes, inflation should be worse in the USA. But that is not the same as saying the US couldn't build alternative sources of supply given time.

---
The Saturn 5 situation is not relevant, because we're talking about products currently under production where blueprints/designs are still available from the manufacturers at each stage of the supply chain.

Targeting money where? They can't even fully identify all Huawei equipment, and that's a branded product with giant logos on it, in peace time, over years. Good luck identifying the parts of PCBs or mechanical assemblies with no logo or only serial numbers, without vendor cooperation.

If products have been installed say 5 years ago and are still working, then the chances are they will continue to work.
Identifying these items is not the same as trying to source components to produce brand new products
 

FairAndUnbiased

Major
Registered Member
YMTC is not representative as its equipment suppliers were/are very dependent on foreign suppliers past the 2 tier. Questioning foreign suppliers on a voluntary basis is going to be slow, so I'm not surprised it took a year.

In comparison, the default position of say Intel is that all of its semiconductor requirement was developed in the West with very little to no Chinese input.

So it's a lot easier to conduct a supply chain audit in such a situation. Plus in wartime, such supply chain audits will have the force of US law behind them and are urgent because companies all along the supply chain are scared that the production will ground to a halt.

So I don't see your assertion that it would take US companies 5 years just to conduct a supply chain audit as valid.

---

As for inflation, it was a problem even before the Russia sanctions. In the event of a US-China war and economic decoupling, yes, inflation should be worse in the USA. But that is not the same as saying the US couldn't build alternative sources of supply given time.

---
The Saturn 5 situation is not relevant, because we're talking about products currently under production where blueprints/designs are still available from the manufacturers at each stage of the supply chain.



If products have been installed say 5 years ago and are still working, then the chances are they will continue to work.
Identifying these items is not the same as trying to source components to produce brand new products
No, YMTC's supply chain audit was to find the dependencies in the first place, not because it was dependent. The supply chain goes deep and dependencies come up in unexpected places.

It seems that you are convinced that just in time supply chains are highly resilient, black box subassemblies are easy to find full replacements for and it's super easy to reverse engineer and produce complex custom mechanical parts that have neither vendor documentation nor anything beyond a serial number. I've never seen that to be the case, historical precedent including the Saturn 5 rocket hasn't shown that to be the case, but maybe you know a case.

I don't know where you get this confidence from. So has anything like this ever happened historically? Please, enlighten us on that.
 

Top