PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[PLAwatcher12]

Did they just teach this to you in school today or something? Seems you're super proud to know the term. I've already responded.

"If 80 people think it's true and one person thinks it's false, it's most likely true. This is real evidence that something is true. Somewhere in your imagination, you think that confirmation bias is a bias, so it's negative, so it must be false. In reality, if you think something and everyone tells you it's wrong, that's strong evidence that it's probably wrong, especially if these people are all more qualified than you on the subject. Having people agree with you is good, not bad."

I said there is a very small unforseen chance.

It's really not. Your English is distractingly bad and it's true. It brings comedy to the fact that you are talking about being professional. It's not an insult to point out the truth.

I don't know if you're just trying to argue to argue or if you are really at your limit that you can't see the difference between a meeting of Trump and his 5 inner circle vs him at a high profile donor event with hundreds of people in attendance thinking about giving him money.

No, you need to tell me why. You think China has very few missiles, can't make them or they'll all get intercepted or what? By the way, what hundreds of bases? America has 128 bases all over the world, less than 40 in Asia, some of them almost 3,000 miles away from Taiwan. In Japan, Korea, Philippines, the number of bases is 31. So "hundreds of bases" is just something you imagined.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US has 120 bases in Japan alone and no I didn’t just learn it today and your response only proves it. Your unforeseen chance is assuming it’s impossible for the US to win and what you said was an insult. I absolutely can see the difference you just said because Trump “said” in private the US can’t defend Taiwan makes it true what isn’t necessarily true.

I feel pretty confident we're not dealing with a STEM, pre-med/pre-dent/pre-law, econ, accounting, finance, or business major here. And definitely not someone attending a top 20 university. Probably some kind of political science, liberal arts, journalism, or international relations major in a 2nd or 3rd tier institution.

why exactly is everyone so curious about what I major in and what university I go too? And yes it’s not a top 20

You need to understand that even if the first two or three months go disastrously for China, China will keep on fighting until its advantages compound to the point of being able to steamroll over all opposition.

Like I said before, consider past history:

Japan knocked out nearly every battleship in the US Pacific Fleet at a time when the battleships was still (incorrectly) considered the lynchpin of naval power. Within a year, the Pacific fleet was sending IJN fleets to the bottom of the sea and the war ended with Japan reduced to rubble.

Germany captured millions of Soviet POWs, destroyed half the Red Army, and fought to within 50km of Moscow during the first two years of its conflict with the USSR. Yet for the last two years of the war, the Red Army was destroying entire German field armies all the way to Berlin.

Or one of my favorite from ancient history: Rome's entire army was enveloped and massacred by Hanibal. Twenty years later, Carthage was erased from history.

Sure yes they definitely can but there is only a certain amount of losses a country can take before they need to stop, that is also well known.

 

[wangcard]

My source is a video of a military blogger, and I don't know if his information is the same as mine

 

[wangcard]

I went to check it again just now, and he mentioned it in the comments.
It is mainly R&D/maintenance/upgrade costs, and the purchase cost is only about 5.23 million dollars per piece.
Although more than 5 million subsonic cruise missiles are also extremely exaggerated

 

[manqiangrexue]

The US has 120 bases in Japan alone

I provided my source. What is yours? I took a further look and see that there are smaller military bases but they are too small to make a difference nor do they host any weaponry that could fight against China. An American base where there are guys riding around in Jeeps and tanks basically does not exist in a Taiwan conflict. For them to be relevent, they need to at least host fighter jets, major drones or warships. America's main military bases to be used in a conflict against China number 14-15.

And you still haven't explained why you think China can't keep hammering them with missiles.

and no I didn’t just learn it today and your response only proves it.

My response proves that you didn't learn it today? How does that work?

Your unforeseen chance is assuming it’s impossible for the US to win

Because there is no foreseeable circumstance where the US can inflict enough damage to China. Your whole premise is that it's not impossible for the US to do some damage. That means nothing in a war.

and what you said was an insult

Sorry you don't like the truth about your writing.

. I absolutely can see the difference you just said because Trump “said” in private the US can’t defend Taiwan makes it true what isn’t necessarily true.

Once again, 1. you asked for when Trump said this 2. it's the attitude of the US president to a Taiwan conflict. He doesn't believe America can win and he has a very large say in whether the US even fights.

Sure yes they definitely can but there is only a certain amount of losses a country can take before they need to stop, that is also well known.

And America has nowhere near the resources in Asia to inflict such losses on China but China has easily enough to make the US retreat or not even dare risk the conflict.

 

[PLAwatcher12]

I provided my source. What is yours? I took a further look and see that there are smaller military bases but they are too small to make a difference nor do they host any weaponry that could fight against China. An American base where there are guys riding around in Jeeps and tanks basically does not exist in a Taiwan conflict. For them to be relevent, they need to at least host fighter jets, major drones or warships. America's main military bases to be used in a conflict against China number 14-15.

And you still haven't explained why you think China can't keep hammering them with missiles.

My response proves that you didn't learn it today? How does that work?

Because there is no foreseeable circumstance where the US can inflict enough damage to China. Your whole premise is that it's not impossible for the US to do some damage. That means nothing in a war.

Sorry you don't like the truth about your writing.

Once again, 1. you asked for when Trump said this 2. it's the attitude of the US president to a Taiwan conflict. He doesn't believe America can win and he has a very large say in whether the US even fights.

And America has nowhere near the resources in Asia to inflict such losses on China but China has easily enough to make the US retreat or not even dare risk the conflict.

Do you love purposely not understanding people? And you can literally look it up it’s not too difficult. And you are aware Trump is a massive liar I wouldn’t exactly take what he says as fact unless you agree with it than in that case must be true, the US has the ability with missiles go inflect damage on China, and yes China can do the same to the US. My point isn’t that. My point is you act like it’s basically impossible for the US to win what isn’t true I have already explained why multiple times. Your “rebuttal” is ether Inorging it or saying missiles and base on fire none of which are really a rebuttal. You just don’t really want to admit that the US could be a threat that China would need to deal with, and China knows that they do treat the US as such and the US treats China as such, since both are threats to each other. If you don’t agree that’s your opinion but it doesn’t make my opinion wrong. Even if US missiles are subsonic given the types and amounts they have they would still cause damage to China, we can’t act like the Chinese mainland would face zero damage in a war with the US, that isn’t realistic but the US would face damage too, maybe more yes but China will face damage too if the US joins the war.

 

[doggydogdo]

Do you love purposely not understanding people? And you can literally look it up it’s not too difficult. And you are aware Trump is a massive liar I wouldn’t exactly take what he says as fact unless you agree with it than in that case must be true, the US has the ability with missiles go inflect damage on China, and yes China can do the same to the US. My point isn’t that. My point is you act like it’s basically impossible for the US to win what isn’t true I have already explained why multiple times. Your “rebuttal” is ether Inorging it or saying missiles and base on fire none of which are really a rebuttal. You just don’t really want to admit that the US could be a threat that China would need to deal with, and China knows that they do treat the US as such and the US treats China as such, since both are threats to each other. If you don’t agree that’s your opinion but it doesn’t make my opinion wrong. Even if US missiles are subsonic given the types and amounts they have they would still cause damage to China, we can’t act like the Chinese mainland would face zero damage in a war with the US, that isn’t realistic but the US would face damage too, maybe more yes but China will face damage too if the US joins the war.

In a war between Canada and US do you believe Canada also have the chance to win?

 

[PLAwatcher12]

In a war between Canada and US do you believe Canada also have the chance to win?

You’re comparing a non peer power to a peer power. China and the US are peer powers. The US is much stronger than Canada

 

[manqiangrexue]

Do you love purposely not understanding people?

I love debating you into the ground.

And you can literally look it up it’s not too difficult.

I did. 14-15 major. That's it.

And you are aware Trump is a massive liar I wouldn’t exactly take what he says as fact unless you agree with it than in that case must be true

He's not a liar when telling his few confidantes how he feels but he is when he addresses a large crowd as to what happened. He told his few guys in his office who take orders from him that America can't do a fucking thing to help Taiwan, then went to a fundraiser saying he threatened China and Russia, neither of which has ever heard of it before.

, the US has the ability with missiles go inflect damage on China,

A small amount of whatever slips through. So what? You can hit a gorilla with a few rocks; it's still gonna kill you.

and yes China can do the same to the US.

On a much larger scale. It's not the same that you can pinprick someone and he can hack off your arm.

My point isn’t that. My point is you act like it’s basically impossible for the US to win what isn’t true I have already explained why multiple times.

Your "point" is that you think that a force with hundreds of bases and thousands of missiles, largely hypersonic and supersonic doesn't have a massive and clear advantage over a force with dozens of bases and hundreds of largely subsonic missiles. Your explanations were all based on how it's possible for the US to slip some damage through to China, which is like a drop in the ocean compared to what they'd need to do.

Your “rebuttal” is ether Inorging it

I've ignored nothing, hence the point-to-point responses.

or saying missiles and base on fire none of which are really a rebuttal.

Then you don't know what a rebuttal is. A rebuttal to bases is the set them on fire with missiles. A rebuttal to both having missiles is that China's are faster, vastly more in number, and don't need to be launched from refueled platforms. What's not a rebuttal is saying that the US might still inflict some damage, because that will not win the conflict.

You just don’t really want to admit that the US could be a threat that China would need to deal with

The US is a threat that China has already prepared itself to deal with.

, and China knows that they do treat the US as such and the US treats China as such, since both are threats to each other.

On the global stage, they are. Just over Taiwan, China could do it today if they didn't care about the larger picture.

If you don’t agree that’s your opinion but it doesn’t make my opinion wrong.

Everybody makes your opinion wrong. You're going back to standing in a corner facing a room saying, "I think Danny Devito can beat Deontay Wilder in a boxing match and that's my opinion and just because you say the opposite doesn't make me wrong."

Even if US missiles are subsonic given the types and amounts they have they would still cause damage to China,

Once again with the, "A dude with a knife can kill 100 dudes with guns because it's possible he can cause damage."

we can’t act like the Chinese mainland would face zero damage in a war with the US

We don't have to act like that. Some damage is acceptable. They cannot inflict anywhere near the amount they would need.

, that isn’t realistic but the US would face damage too, maybe more yes but China will face damage too if the US joins the war.

Dude, the US has like an appendage in Asia compared to China's whole body. If China takes less damage than the US while it can afford to take way way more, China wins. Nobody here is saying that China couldn't possibly take any damage from any American action; we're saying that it would be nowhere near enough to give the US a victory.

You’re comparing a non peer power to a peer power. China and the US are peer powers. The US is much stronger than Canada

If you count the military assets and land that the US can fight from in Asia, it is not a peer to China in the Taiwan theatre. China has way more of everything and way more land to put them on. America's got a few dozen bases China needs to missile spam before nothing can operate anymore.

 

[wangcard]

What's so noisy about this?
One person believes that the United States is China's biggest threat in the Taiwan Strait
One person thinks that if there is a war between China and the United States, China will eventually win.
People who have the right views and facts quarrel with each other. It is impossible to convince the other party. Of course, you can only quarrel. This will only pollute the post

 

[PLAwatcher12]

I love debating you into the ground.

I did. 14-15 major. That's it.

He's not a liar when telling his few confidantes how he feels but he is when he addresses a large crowd as to what happened. He told his few guys in his office who take orders from him that America can't do a fucking thing to help Taiwan, then went to a fundraiser saying he threatened China and Russia, neither of which has ever heard of it before.

A small amount of whatever slips through. So what? You can hit a gorilla with a few rocks; it's still gonna kill you.

On a much larger scale. It's not the same that you can pinprick someone and he can hack off your arm.

Your "point" is that you think that a force with hundreds of bases and thousands of missiles, largely hypersonic and supersonic doesn't have a massive and clear advantage over a force with dozens of bases and hundreds of largely subsonic missiles. Your explanations were all based on how it's possible for the US to slip some damage through to China, which is like a drop in the ocean compared to what they'd need to do.

I've ignored nothing, hence the point-to-point responses.

Then you don't know what a rebuttal is. A rebuttal to bases is the set them on fire with missiles. A rebuttal to both having missiles is that China's are faster, vastly more in number, and don't need to be launched from refueled platforms. What's not a rebuttal is saying that the US might still inflict some damage, because that will not win the conflict.

The US is a threat that China has already prepared itself to deal with.

On the global stage, they are. Just over Taiwan, China could do it today if they didn't care about the larger picture.

Everybody makes your opinion wrong. You're going back to standing in a corner facing a room saying, "I think Danny Devito can beat Deontay Wilder in a boxing match and that's my opinion and just because you say the opposite doesn't make me wrong."

Once again with the, "A dude with a knife can kill 100 dudes with guns because it's possible he can cause damage."

We don't have to act like that. Some damage is acceptable. They cannot inflict anywhere near the amount they would need.

Dude, the US has like an appendage in Asia compared to China's whole body. If China takes less damage than the US while it can afford to take way way more, China wins. Nobody here is saying that China couldn't possibly take any damage from any American action; we're saying that it would be nowhere near enough to give the US a victory.

If you count the military assets and land that the US can fight from in Asia, it is not a peer to China in the Taiwan theatre. China has way more of everything and way more land to put them on. America's got a few dozen bases China needs to missile spam before nothing can operate anymore.

You have not debated me into the ground other than in your own head, and trump lies all the time, not just in public, you agree what he reportedly said because that fits your narrative. Your view of the US military and bases are very simplified you want to act fair but your really not, just because you think China will win doesn’t mean you can just say US bases don’t matter and US missiles are too few to do damage. All of which are lies, and I have discussed already why but you don’t want to hear anything that counterdicts your scenario you have already agreed with what is the US in any war isn’t a threat because China has missiles, but missiles aren’t a god tier weapon and Ukraine has shown that, there is alot that goes into it not just missile hit=base destroyed. Yes missiles a threat and just because US missiles are subsonic doesn’t mean they’re not a threat and your analogies aren’t good they make no sense for this debate. Btw even most US missiles need refueling platforms their still deadly, for example the USS Michigan can carry more than 100 tomahawks, other classes can carry 12-40. The B-52 can carry 20 JASSM and the B-2 can carry around 16, none of these are “useless” while slower if launched in enough salvos can overwhelm Chinese AD