Korean War 70 years later Win Lose and A draw
- Thread starter TerraN_EmpirE
- Start date
It's not blustering when there's ample evidence to actually wreck your presumptions about Chinese or China's penchant and willingness to stomach casualties far beyond what America has ever experienced in it's entire military history.
The western way of doing war that has successfully subdued and conquered the world as Professor Victor Davis Hanson wrote in his books "The Father of us all: War and History" and "The Western Way Of War" the west won not through superiority in numbers -- since Asia always was and always will be able to dwarf the combined population of Western Anglo-Saxon world/Europe -- but through the use of technology and the ability to kill the enemies at a far greater clip than any enemy could ever do in return. Which is what happened to China in the aftermath of the Opium War, and hosts of Asian countries in India and the Middle East and the whole continent of Africa.
As for the notion that America and her leaders future willingness to shed casualties far more than what most people assume is not based on any historical facts. There's been considerable debate in and out of America that one of the primary reasons for unleashing the atom bombs against Japan by Truman was due to the projected massive casualties that the U.S. Marines were supposed to suffer. It was in the million(s), a number that Truman couldn't fathom to imagine nor accept. The total number of American losses in WWII was less than 500,000 not including the wounded, the total losses Russia and China losts were in the tens of millions, 25 to 27 million to be exact. Do you think Americans have the stomach for a massive human loss?
The wars in Korea and Vietnam exemplified the casualty aversion that America has exercised in the 20th century and as a matter of fact the debacle of Vietnam and it's subsequent withdrawal was blamed on the war draftees, young people who may have supported the Vietnam War but turned against it once their collective assess were called upon. Resulting in protests and wide unrest in America a lesson that the U.S. Army learned which led to the new volunteer force Army; a supposedly more professional trained killing machine.
Using the unfortunate deaths of Americans that died from the pandemic simply doesn't cut the mustard for me man. An act of God event is far different from a potential existential battle against an enemy it has never faced in this century. The potential military losses for America if its to arrogantly insist their way of life to China over Taiwan and the SCS will be on a scale never seen before for that country period.
Hiroshima and Nagssaki
Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote: “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material success in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated"
The target of the bombs was not Japan
The historical reasons for this monstrosity were
(1) the inertia of a perverse curiosity, Two bombs were dropped and not one or three because two were the materials: uranium and plutonium
(2) to make it clear to the whole World who was the "top dog"
(3) the starting signal to continue Adolf's war against Communism
The Target was Russia ... Korea, China ... and the whole World
The ultimate reason was the blindness of American intelligence
If American intelligence had known the progress of the Russian nuclear program, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have happened
Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote: “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material success in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated"
The target of the bombs was not Japan
The historical reasons for this monstrosity were
(1) the inertia of a perverse curiosity, Two bombs were dropped and not one or three because two were the materials: uranium and plutonium
(2) to make it clear to the whole World who was the "top dog"
(3) the starting signal to continue Adolf's war against Communism
The Target was Russia ... Korea, China ... and the whole World
The ultimate reason was the blindness of American intelligence
If American intelligence had known the progress of the Russian nuclear program, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have happened
There're always elements of surprise in life. Every body bets on US resiliency and even argues that Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing … after they have exhausted all other possibilities. This is the most nonsense thing I've ever heard. Every person will do exactly just that. Just take a look at how the US has been handling the Covid pandemic though touted as the best health-care provider in the world. Hitler's analysis is spot on - I rephrase - when the society is brainwashed, the ugly truth will never be accepted. Instead, the people will look for other excuses.
The biggest paradox is the US is so strong yet never dares to go to war alone. It uses its vassals as cannon fodders. The Chinese with more than two thousand years of warfare in their genes knows this strategy so well. They even laugh when US is bluffing that attacking US CSGs will not go unpunished - it is a two-way street!
And the forgotten paradox is that Chinese is the most resilient people on earth, just read its long recorded history starting from the warring-states periods until today, then read the Chinese immigrants during US rail construction in 19th century (?) though away from home, plus the roles the despatched Chinese played during world wars 1 and 2 in European theaters.
As for the CPC, it's been standing still after experiencing its nadir (Cultural Revolution, Tangshan earthquake etc). That's why CPC under Deng's leadership was confident when facing US-backed color-revolution/Tian Anmen protest. As a man of steel, Deng even melted the iron lady Tatcher to return Hong Kong to China though the island should be British's in perpetuity.
So, good luck with the US strength, you guys really need it .....
It's generally risky to assume the United States is cowardly and not willing to fight a full-scale war, ESPECIALLY when you consider the policy instability in the United States.
Compared to China, the United States has substantial deficits in industrial output, but that's more for a ground war and the Sino-American frontier is air-naval. The United States still has a major aircraft industry; the only true competitor for Boeing is Airbus, the pace of F-35 production is outmatched by none, and so on.
===
If we compare to the last time someone tried to contest the United States for military primacy in the Western Pacific, China, unlike Japan, has substantial manpower reserves and industrial capability. Unfortunately, China is behind in terms of technology (the J-20 is not as stealthy as an F-35) and is behind in terms of the capabilities of its standing army.
If you consider the extreme lethality of modern weapons, as well as the relatively civilianized Chinese industrial complex (during the Cold War, Chinese factories and industry was moved deep into the mountains to protect against both American and Soviet attacks), the likely outcome should the Chinese fail to win the initial battle is that China's industrial base will be exposed to the United States and take substantial attrition during the early phases of the war. This could very much set it up so that China cannot make use of its advantage in industrial capability.
===
As for the "Americans are pussies" argument, this was the exact same argument the Japanese tried to make it seem as though WW2 was winnable. Strong initial strikes might have given them better options after Pearl Harbor, but afterwards their main choice was to make the Americans pay in blood for territory the Americans took.
The more interesting thing isn't that the Americans aren't pussies when push comes to shove, but rather that whether or not the Americans are pussies is irrelevant when it comes to a full-scale Sino-American conflict. At low-levels of escalation, the war will be air-naval, and guess what? Sunk ships, shot down pilots, these are relatively capital-intensive and life-cheap; ships might be extremely expensive to build, the same with aircraft, but it's not the same as, say, the UN fuck-up in Korea with ground armies exposed to the People's Volunteer Army. There simply aren't that many lives to lose at that stage.
If, say, the Americans manage to punch through the PLAGF and PLAAF air defenses and the PLAN's ships, the Americans don't need to land ground forces and expose them to insurgent activity, but merely keep on dropping bombs from B-21s. On the other hand, if the PLARF / PLAAF / PLAN manage to blow through the USN / JSDF / ROKAF / USAF, it still doesn't matter whether the Americans are pussies. The will might be there, definitely, but the Americans won't have the physical assets available to make it happen.
===
My stance is, basically, the CPC seems to be taking it cheap regarding the US military build-up and preparation for a Goetterdaemmerung battle. If push comes to shove and you're seeing 6 CSGs off the Chinese coast, it's unlikely that with present capabilities that the PLA can neutralize and defeat the American forces if the fight is merely not over Taiwan (the Chinese are expected to win such), but instead the fight is over China as a whole. The Chinese, of course, can increase military spending to be able to negate any regional American presence (DF-26s are expected to cost around 10-25 million a pop), but it's expensive and the CPC's stance seems to be more to try to seek a diplomatic solution.
Compared to China, the United States has substantial deficits in industrial output, but that's more for a ground war and the Sino-American frontier is air-naval. The United States still has a major aircraft industry; the only true competitor for Boeing is Airbus, the pace of F-35 production is outmatched by none, and so on.
===
If we compare to the last time someone tried to contest the United States for military primacy in the Western Pacific, China, unlike Japan, has substantial manpower reserves and industrial capability. Unfortunately, China is behind in terms of technology (the J-20 is not as stealthy as an F-35) and is behind in terms of the capabilities of its standing army.
If you consider the extreme lethality of modern weapons, as well as the relatively civilianized Chinese industrial complex (during the Cold War, Chinese factories and industry was moved deep into the mountains to protect against both American and Soviet attacks), the likely outcome should the Chinese fail to win the initial battle is that China's industrial base will be exposed to the United States and take substantial attrition during the early phases of the war. This could very much set it up so that China cannot make use of its advantage in industrial capability.
===
As for the "Americans are pussies" argument, this was the exact same argument the Japanese tried to make it seem as though WW2 was winnable. Strong initial strikes might have given them better options after Pearl Harbor, but afterwards their main choice was to make the Americans pay in blood for territory the Americans took.
The more interesting thing isn't that the Americans aren't pussies when push comes to shove, but rather that whether or not the Americans are pussies is irrelevant when it comes to a full-scale Sino-American conflict. At low-levels of escalation, the war will be air-naval, and guess what? Sunk ships, shot down pilots, these are relatively capital-intensive and life-cheap; ships might be extremely expensive to build, the same with aircraft, but it's not the same as, say, the UN fuck-up in Korea with ground armies exposed to the People's Volunteer Army. There simply aren't that many lives to lose at that stage.
If, say, the Americans manage to punch through the PLAGF and PLAAF air defenses and the PLAN's ships, the Americans don't need to land ground forces and expose them to insurgent activity, but merely keep on dropping bombs from B-21s. On the other hand, if the PLARF / PLAAF / PLAN manage to blow through the USN / JSDF / ROKAF / USAF, it still doesn't matter whether the Americans are pussies. The will might be there, definitely, but the Americans won't have the physical assets available to make it happen.
===
My stance is, basically, the CPC seems to be taking it cheap regarding the US military build-up and preparation for a Goetterdaemmerung battle. If push comes to shove and you're seeing 6 CSGs off the Chinese coast, it's unlikely that with present capabilities that the PLA can neutralize and defeat the American forces if the fight is merely not over Taiwan (the Chinese are expected to win such), but instead the fight is over China as a whole. The Chinese, of course, can increase military spending to be able to negate any regional American presence (DF-26s are expected to cost around 10-25 million a pop), but it's expensive and the CPC's stance seems to be more to try to seek a diplomatic solution.
2 points
First point, even if the USA wins a conventional war against China, what about the aftermath?
We'll just end up with a situation where China comes back after 20 years looking for revenge.
Think Imperial Germany which turned into Nazi Germany.
Or the continuous Franco-German wars.
And China should be significantly larger than the USA in most respects.
---
Secondly, China doesn't need to invest in a conventional military to match the USA, if China can credibly nuke the continental USA.
If the USA and China were to get into a war, it would likely go nuclear.
That would deter the USA from interfering if China and Taiwan ended up in a conventional war.
And China has a large enough conventional force to achieve its Taiwan objectives.
Hence the 350+ nuclear missile silos currently under construction in China, which could potentially contain 3500+ nuclear warheads
The problem with Chinese strategic ambitions is that it is extremely weak on an ideological level. The United States is not merely a hard power comprising military and economic strength, it's also a soft power that comprises ideological strength.
Repeated Sino-American wars that don't go nuclear aren't a "bad" thing for the United States provided that the United States maintains its ideological dominance. If the United States and China end up destroying each other's hard power, the United States still retains soft power and de facto wins, since if China wants to play things as ethno-nationalism, it's only appealing to about 15-20% of the world's population that happens to be Chinese or ethnic Chinese.
China's victory scenarios come in about 2 ways:
First, China defeats the United States decisively in terms of hard power and forces the United States to either click the nuclear trigger button and kill everyone, or concede a Chinese sphere.
Second, China manages to avoid war with the United States long enough to surpass the United States in nominal economic terms, as well as technologically. In such a scenario, it's possible for China to develop soft power and ideological arguments in the meanwhile.
====
TBH, when I talk to Americans and Westerners, I typically try to remind them that China isn't the Soviet Union and running over China isn't as easy as it appears. The Cold War, as I've said, was a farce because the Soviets were never true competitors to the United States, except on an ideological sphere. The Soviets started at about 25% of US GDP and the US started at 50% of world GDP. From a Marxist economic determinism perspective, the United States was very unlikely to lose. The Chinese, currently, are at about 75% of US GDP and the race is significantly closer to parity.
On the other hand, when I talk to Chinese nationalists, I try to remind them more of American strength and the fact that while winning the geostrategic competition with the United States is a possibility, it's not an inevitability and has to be worked toward. There are many ways this things can go wrong, and the main victory scenario depends on American weaknesses knocking out the United States before Chinese weaknesses knock out China.
Your scenario of repeated conventional Sino-US wars is completely unrealistic.
There is a reason why the US and the USSR avoided a direct conflict, even at the level of individual soldiers.
They both know the outcome is a continuous escalation to the level of nuclear weapons.
Just look at the official policy and writings from the USA
In the more distant future, I reckon the Chinese economy will end up being 3x larger than the USA.
Given such a disparity, it is very difficult to see how the US can maintain a position in the Western Pacific.
That's a step too far.
The US is doing fine by itself with identity politics (Republican versus Democrats)