it is not actually a bad idea, but because it opens up a whole other can of worms I am not sure the cautious nature of Chinese leadership would permit themselves to indulge in that kind of tit-for-tat move.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
Your list is very cool.
A wish list for a war China can't win but won't lose either. It reminded me of the Cold War arms race, the USSR and the US spent madly to fight a war that neither side could win, anyway, the period when both sides spent trillions of dollars could have turned into a lot of other spending. essential to develop their economies and improve the national or perhaps global socio-economic situation - who knows.
I perfectly understand what @plawolf means and I agree 100% with his conclusions.
You are very concerned about how China will pursue its military policy towards the hypothetical future scenario in which China has to mandatorily increase its military spending to match a very hostile US or an entire coalition against China. Your argument makes it clear that your desire is China's total military superiority, because no sane person would say that China would need "hundreds of long-range VLO bombers" if it didn't want China's total superiority, your later arguments make that clear. .
Instead of focusing on that, the focus should be on what China has achieved so far and how to maintain and expand it with minimal budgetary effort.
Notable achievements spending "1.4% of GDP" -
1 - The J-20 is the only 5th generation fighter in mass service that was not manufactured in the US.
2 - Between that year and 2023, the J-20 will have already exceeded the number of units of the F-22 produced, becoming the 2nd most produced 5th generation fighter after the F-35 (800 units produced so far) which is a MULTINATIONAL hunting program. (Note: considering that as of 2021, China has built 150 J - 20)
3 - Made the PLAN the largest navy in the world in terms of units in service and the number continues to increase every year.
4 - It will make the PLAN the 2nd largest carrier operator in the world when Fujian enters service.
5 - In terms of amphibious capability (mainly assault ships), the PLANMC is second only to the USMC.
6 - The PLAGF is becoming a modern mechanized force even though it maintains the 2nd largest contingent of ground forces in the world, behind only India, which are under-equipped ground forces.
7 - Made the PLARF an expanded missile force, mainly at intermediate range levels which has no equivalent in the world, modernization is in full swing, the force even has hypersonic missiles which the US and the West do not have in service. .
8 - The sky is not the limit here. As the number of military satellites increases each year, the USSF sees China as an equal or even superior competitor.
There are 8 GENERAL facts that allow us to analyze the military force that China has built so far, spending only "1.4%" of GDP. China spending just 1.4% of GDP is forcing the US to increase its spending in % of GDP (with Russian help of course), also including South Korea (with North Korea's help of course) and Japan (with aid from North Korea, Russia and possibly also South Korea).
If China maintains the annual pace of economic growth at 4.5% on average until 2030, China would have a GDP close to US$28.3 trillion in nominal terms by the end of this decade, the US with optimistic average growth of 2 .5% by the end of 2030 would have a GDP of US$30.9 trillion, at 2% growth on average would have a GDP of US$29.7 trillion. If the US is desperate for military budget increases now when China is $6 trillion lower nominal GDP, imagine when the Chinese economy is just $1 or $2 trillion below? China's military power would grow at the same rate as economic growth as it has always occurred and has been maintained until now, this comfortable situation for China in which economic growth allows expanding military capacity will only change when the economic growth rate is equivalent or a little bigger than its biggest global competitor - USA, the trend is that this will remain until at least the end of the 2030s, we still have a long almost 20 years ahead.
Just making a comparison, with a GDP of US$28.3 trillion, this would be around US$10 trillion added to China's annual GDP, a percentage equivalent to half of China's current GDP - in terms of military spending, if it kept the same rate. defense spending by 1.4% of GDP, would also mean a 50% increase in the PLA's current total spending.
Imagine that 7.5 years from now (2030), spending will increase by 50% compared to current levels, making a ridiculous account here, imagine 50% increase in spending in PLAAF, PLAN, PLAGF, PLARF among others. That would be enough money to make the PLA a fully modern force before 2035 was the initial goal.
IMO there is no need to increase spending as a percentage of GDP.
No, why should it be that?
Edit: To clarify, the criterion I use is very simple: The US doesn't bat an eye over buying hundreds of stealth bombers, so why should China?
Last edited:
American soldiers cried "War is hell!!!", realizing that fact after being bombed by howitzers.
An American fighting for Ukraine who served in the U.S. Army with combat tours in the Middle East described the constant Russian bombardment of the city of Severodonetsk in Ukraine’s Donbas region as “the closest thing I’ve ever seen to hell.”
...
“The number of people that are upset and have low morale has increased, and that’s partly because of the way the Russians have chosen to fight,”Ripley Rawlings, a retired U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel and author, who is providing supplies to foreign fighters in Ukraine through his U.S.-based organization, Ripley’s Heroes, said.
Ya, the Russian can fight back the same way. The horror.....
Only if South Korea aids the American invasion. The more limited the war, the better.
China can probably land on Taiwan the moment America declares intent to invade. Ideally, the war will then be over once China neutralized most of the rebel forces on Taiwan main island and then move DF26s onto Taiwan, allowing them to overlook Okinawa and drive US navy back to the Eastern side of Philippines. The sinking of just 1 or 2 carrier groups should be sufficient in completely deterring American invasion.
America would try and use their larger navy to find and force the Chinese into a decisive carrier vs carrier battle, if they win, it would open the door towards US troops landing in Taiwan. From there, they can utilize rebel support and slowly push the PLA out.
The role of American dependencies will probably be similar to Belarus in the Ukraine conflict. China can permit some degree of US troop transfers through Korea and Japan.
I thought the soldiers would be more sober than those who didn't have to go to war, but the fact told me that they were all equally arrogant and arrogant.
Their service experience in Iraq and Afghanistan was like a vacation.This reminds me of Europe before the first World War. European countries have been addicted to the pleasure of killing indigenous people in the past. They underestimated the killing efficiency of advanced weapons, and did not expect that these advanced weapons would be used against themselves.
If compared with reality, then I think COD: Modern War series and Black Ops series is the worst game,how ridiculous would the omnipotent Task Force 141 and CIA agents be in reality.
I don't think General Kim has enough fuel reserves.
However, it is worth worrying that South Korea may take the initiative to intervene in the war under the instigation or order of the Americans because it is worried that its route will be controlled by China.
Whether they will be intimidated by the PLA's strong offensive capabilities or take the initiative to intervene because of arrogance and contempt is still a question.
Because the South Koreans have a modern air force of considerable scale, the Americans are likely to incite the South Koreans to participate in the war to disperse the power of the PLA.
It is necessary to let General Kim take the initiative to create a little tension to distract South Korea.