PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[manqiangrexue]

First off my points were logistics aren’t impossible for the US during wars

That's a stupid point to start out with. What's impossible? If there's a 0.0001% chance, it's not impossible and I think we've all given the US more than that benefit of the doubt.

and missiles alone don’t win wars,

Missiles alone are marvelous access denial though you can't carry out in invasion with missiles. As far as the US is concerned in this conflict, it's all access denial.

and I did say if the US knew war was coming they could

They could what? They don't have the stuff they need in Asia to fight China and if they got it there, they'd be at the mercy of China's missiles. The stragglers that manage to survive don't win anything other than the honor to finally face China's air force and navy.

Mod: Removed personal attack section

 

[AndrewS]

Repost here for reference:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 156674

@GZDRefugee

Additional things to consider:

1. The 150+ Chinese airbases (and also air defences) are far more densely concentrated and therefore mutually supporting. For example, the Shanghai region can likely scramble 100+ fighters with at least 600 AAMs capable of shooting down cruise missiles. So it isn't feasible to overwhelm Chinese defences with cruise missiles.

In comparison, potential American airbases are scattered and isolated from each other.

China definitely has enough long-range ground-attack missiles (both air and truck-launched) which can credibly overwhelm the defences of those isolated airbases. After that, it is feasible for the Chinese Air Force to use low cost:

a) Khagantak glide bombs (~$30K?) with a 180km range
b) Shaheed cruise missiles ($~35K) with a 1000/2500km range
c) CMMT cruise missiles (~$150K) with a 800km range

2. At the same time, these Chinese airbases are distributed in depth, so there are many safe(r) airbases to the rear for large aircraft such as AWACs, tankers or bombers.

In comparison, the First Island Chain has no strategic depth. The next option is a single base in Guam some 2000+ km distant.
Then after that, it's empty Pacific Ocean until you reach Alaska, Hawaii or Australia

---

So we can expect much heavier attacks on US airbases which are very successful.
Whilst Chinese airbases would be largely defended.

---

Also, consider that an aircraft carrier is simply a mobile airbase. And the US can credibly deploy 4? at maximum

 

[PLAwatcher12]

That's a stupid point to start out with. What's impossible? If there's a 0.0001% chance, it's not impossible and I think we've all given the US more than that benefit of the doubt.

Missiles alone are marvelous access denial though you can't carry out in invasion with missiles. As far as the US is concerned in this conflict, it's all access denial.

They could what? They don't have the stuff they need in Asia to fight China and if they got it there, they'd be at the mercy of China's missiles. The stragglers that manage to survive don't win anything other than the honor to finally face China's air force and navy.

But your opinion is very uneducated and unprofessional, making it very difficult to respond professionally, especially when it's the same things being repeated. Everybody has a limit. If a nutjob crashes a symposium of mathematicians/scientists and can't stop running his mouth saying ridiculous things, even their professionalism and old professor demeanors will wear thin when they eventually tell him to shut his stupid uneducated mouth and get out.

Try harder. People with dyslexia don't always write like alphabet soup.

Neither do repeats of defeated points.

Well thank you for proving what I was saying and you do have an oversimplified view of the US and saying you can’t debate someone without resorting to personal insults says more about you guys than it does about me, if you can’t reply to disagreement without resorting to insults you shouldn’t debate. Also why is every comment of yours to me insults and personal attacks? Can you not debate me without resorting to that? Also insults don’t make you look smart nor do they make you look cool. If you can’t debate without always resorting to insults than you shouldn’t debate especially in an professional forum

 

[vincent]

Everyone, please keep the discussion civil and avoid personal attacks.

 

[PLAwatcher12]

You're welcome for my proving you wrong again.

So do we all, eh? So do Trump and Hegseth. You're the only one who gets it, right? LOL

We could. We actually did both. We debated you into the ground first. I respond to everything you write. You're the one writing selective responses, as if personal insults are now center stage when you actually failed to answer all the rebuttals.

If you can't continue a conversation except to repeat your old points instead of responding to rebuttals, you shouldn't debate.

Because your posts and writing are such poor quality they are substandard even in the Yahoo comments section, yet you try to debate here and are stubborn to the point where you insist that every person private and public, casual to professional, could be wrong because you don't like that they say the opposite of what you want to hear.

And I'll remind you one more time:
"You're the one who decided you couldn't keep up with the point-to-point and just call it all BS, right? You wanted to flip the chess board and now you're all sad you were hit in the face with flying pieces."

I already said my points, and the rebuttals were China has missiles and bases on fire, like the mod said up above there is no reason for personal insults this is a professional forum. And no I said I won’t debate you anymore because it’s a waste of my time. Also Trump said in a private meeting he would bomb Beijing if China “invaded” Taiwan, that doesn’t mean he will though and what hegseth said was mostly to drive fear what the US does

 

[manqiangrexue]

I already said my points,

OK

and the rebuttals were China has missiles and bases on fire,

That's a valid rebuttal, and then your response was, "They have bases" again.

like the mod said up above there is no reason for personal insults this is a professional forum.

So be professional. Restarting an argument 50 times because you can't get past the rebuttal isn't professional.

And no I said I won’t debate you anymore because it’s a waste of my time.

The way you're unable to learn from anyone here is indeed a waste of time. It's a waste of everybody's time.

 

[PLAwatcher12]

OK

That's a valid rebuttal, and then your response was, "They have bases" again.

So be professional. Restarting an argument 50 times because you can't get past the rebuttal isn't professional.

The way you're unable to learn from anyone here is indeed a waste of time. It's a waste of everybody's time.

Saying China and missiles and bases on fire isn’t a rebuttal it’s just Inorging the impact of bases, what we should both agree do have impacts on war. I was being professional and saying my points even if you disagreed. I am able to learn

 

[bebops]

When it comes to these attack debates or discussion, everyone has their own opinion. If you don't like any posters here, just click on the ignore button.

This is a forum. I doubt the top military guys will even look at this forum or follow some of our advices..

 

[PLAwatcher12]

When it comes to these attack debates or discussion, everyone has their own opinion. If you don't like any posters here, just click on the ignore button.

This is a forum. I doubt the top military guys will even look at this forum or follow some of our advices..

You are right but personal attacks shouldn’t have any place in debates especially on a professional forum

 

[manqiangrexue]

Also Trump said in a private meeting he would bomb Beijing if China “invaded” Taiwan

No, actually he claimed that publically. He claimed the same about Russia and Medvedyev said he never dared say this in Moscow. You're confused at what constitutes propaganda and what doesn't. Trump said this pubically to look tough. In private, he said there's nothing the US could do to help Taiwan.

, that doesn’t mean he will though and what hegseth said was mostly to drive fear what the US does

Same issue you had with Trump; you flipped what was said to fanfare and what wasn't. Hegseth said in a podcast that the US is screwed. When put on the spot in congress, he claimed that the US would win. That is a man protecting his job when put on the stand.

You asked me to show you where Trump and Hegseth said that the US would lose in a Taiwan conflict. I showed you, then you tried to slip out of them because you did not want to accept it.

Saying China and missiles and bases on fire isn’t a rebuttal

Yeah it is. You have bases. I destroy them with missiles. If you think it isn't, then you haven't learned what a rebuttal is yet.

it’s just Inorging the impact of bases,

Which is that they can get destroyed by missiles.

what we should both agree do have impacts on war.

Yeah, they cause China to use missiles to hit them. The missile impact is the impact.

I was being professional

No you were not. There is no professional military expert in the world without a Bachelor's degree. Repeating things that other people already put down several times is not being professional even if you tried to be civil about it.

and saying my points even if you disagreed.

You said there are bases. I said they'd be destroyed by missiles, and you said but they have impacts. WTF is that?

I am able to learn

Then you should show it instead of going in the same circles over and over.

You are right but personal attacks shouldn’t have any place in debates especially on a professional forum

The only reason you're still going on about this is because you've got no substance in the real debate.