Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Mohsin77 said:

Oh really? A few posts ago you didn't even know what "air supremacy" meant. You thought it meant enforcing "0 sorties" lolz. You were also using "real world" examples which were contradicting your entire premise, like the WWII European theater.

And when you got exposed, you abandoned the above and quickly flipped your entire argument to Taiwan getting nukes randomly, as if that would save you. However, when one fundamentally misunderstands the principle involved, then "metrics" don't matter. Nothing you have said touches the core argument.

All you're doing is pushing for China to deprioritize air supremacy in planning for the Taiwan scenario. It's a ridiculous suggestion, not unlike many others I've seen from you before, like your advocacy of war crimes. This is the problem with Hitler-wannabes. They think they know what they're doing, but they only end up losing wars and getting people killed.

Click to expand...

I abandoned nothing. I only made the point that waiting for absolute air supremacy may not be a luxury and other maneuver has to happen simultaneously. And I noticed you cannot refute the points about Korea and Vietnam. Why didn't US leisurely bomb North Korea from bases in Japan and instead went for an amphibious attack at Incheon first? And did US get defeated by air to ground attack in either Korea or Vietnam?

I don't recall you being any sort of technical authority or insider. Who do you think you are lmao.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Sometimes air supremacy is unnecessary, with air supremacy being defined as "he flies, he dies." Sometimes air superiority (disabling enemy air to ground, severely limiting their sortie rate and forcing them only to fly sporadic air to air) in the opening phase is good enough. You'll get air supremacy as time goes on with ground or naval action taking out their bases or sinking their carriers.

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. Air supremacy is not what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq 2003. Those two wars distorted the Western perspective on war. If you are not spending $100 billion a year to fight a medium size militia and using local cannon fodders to spot the enemy (Iraqi and Afghan armies) you will lose equipment and people.
The western public is used to wars they suffer very few KIA and no major platform losses but that's not what happens if you are not fighting against a medium size militia and spending $100 billion every year to do so.

FairAndUnbiased said:

I abandoned nothing.

Click to expand...

You did. Like the fact that you didnt know what "Air Supremacy" actually meant lolz.

FairAndUnbiased said:

I only made the point that waiting for absolute air supremacy may not be a luxury

Click to expand...

Yea, and I already told you that you dont have to wait "weeks" for it. That isnt a neccessary condition with the proper capacity and war planning.

Second, I told you that launching without the capacity to enforce it is only something you would do when you get blindsided and pulled into a war when you are unprepeared. And that is something to be avoided generally in any case. If you get pulled into one then obviously you do the best you can, but that is irrelvant to my argument.

FairAndUnbiased said:

And I noticed you cannot refute the points about Korea and Vietnam. Why didn't US leisurely bomb North Korea from bases in Japan and instead went for an amphibious attack at Incheon first? And did US get defeated by air to ground attack in either Korea or Vietnam?

Click to expand...

Again, a strawman. I already countered this and you're just going in circles. Air supremacy does NOT guarentee victory (I never said it does.) Nor does the fact that wars have been won without air supremacy mean it should be deprioritized.

You are just repeating points already countered, over and over again. This is a sign of insanity. I told you once before: Seek professional help and medication.

FairAndUnbiased said:

I don't recall you being any sort of technical authority or insider. Who do you think you are lmao.

Click to expand...

As long as I'm not a war crime advocating Hitler-wannabe like you, that's fine by me.

plawolf said:

Good list, but most, if not all of these points really shouldn’t be needed to be highlighted since they are just well known and well established basics of warfare strategy.

I think the biggest takeaway China should and will learn from the Ukraine war is that war is war, and that there is no such thing as a ‘brotherly war’ where you can go in with kid gloves pulling your punches and expect the other side to just cave and give up at the first opportunity.

The Iraqis folded so spectacularly during both Gulf Wars not because of any ideological reasons but because the US beat the living snot out of them so badly that they totally lost the willpower to continue getting curbstomped. The same armed that crumbled against the Americans fought for years against the Iranians for example. Just shows how important moral is, all else being equal.

If China wants Taiwan to fold, it needs to hit it harder, not pull its punches. Unless and until the enemy surrenders, you must attack them with excessive force and violence and be prepared to slaughter them without mercury or hesitation if they don’t have the good sense to surrender. Post conflict resentment about killed soldier relatives are a problem for after the war. No point worrying about that if you cannot make sure you actually win the war.

So long as the Chinese political leadership goes in with clear head and eyes and don’t hold any delusions about what they are getting into, I’m confident the PLA knows it’s trade well enough and is well equipped and provisioned enough to do a far better and cleaner job than the sloppy, ugly mess the Russians are making in Ukraine.

Click to expand...

I'm at a loss as to how the Ukrainian Army in Eastern Ukraine is still being resupplied, given the weeks that have passed.

I count a total of 20 bridges across the Dnipro River (including in Kyiv), which separates Eastern Ukraine from Western Ukraine.
Note Russia controls the bridges near Kherson.

Then along the Vorskla River (which runs from the Dnipro River, past Poltava City, then to the Russian Border near Kharkiv), it looks like another 20 bridges. Cutting this river would further isolate the battlefield from the rest of Ukraine.

And given Russia's revised aims (presumably on a expanded Donbass and Southern Ukraine, that is still more territory than the Russian Army can take and hold anyway.

---

I've previously noted that there are 294 bridges across 15 major rivers/canals in Taiwan.

Hitting these bridges would isolate Taiwan into 16 separate regions of 1-2 million people.
The transport network would be completely broken, hindering mobilisation, food supplies etc etc
Taiwan only produces a third of its food requirements and imports the rest.

AndrewS said:

I'm at a loss as to how the Ukrainian Army in Eastern Ukraine is still being resupplied, given the weeks that have passed.

I count a total of 20 bridges across the Dnipro River (including in Kyiv), which separates Eastern Ukraine from Western Ukraine.
Note Russia controls the bridges near Kherson.

Then along the Vorskla River (which runs from the Dnipro River, past Poltava City, then to the Russian Border near Kharkiv), it looks like another 20 bridges. Cutting this river would further isolate the battlefield from the rest of Ukraine.

And given Russia's revised aims (presumably on a expanded Donbass and Southern Ukraine, that is still more territory than the Russian Army can take and hold anyway.

---

I've previously noted that there are 294 bridges across 15 major rivers/canals in Taiwan.

Hitting these bridges would isolate Taiwan into 16 separate regions of 1-2 million people.
The transport network would be completely broken, hindering mobilisation, food supplies etc etc
Taiwan only produces a third of its food requirements and imports the rest.

Click to expand...

If the DPP are in power, the president would declare Taiwanese Freedom Pineapples as a superfruit. 1 Pineapple will sustain you for a week and give you the strength of 25 PLA soldiers. Also will make you totally irresistible to the opposite sex. No need to worry about food supply!

Mohsin77 said:

You did. Like the fact that you didnt know what "Air Supremacy" actually meant lolz.



Yea, and I already told you that you dont have to wait "weeks" for it. That isnt a neccessary condition with the proper capacity and war planning.

Second, I told you that launching without the capacity to enforce it is only something you would do when you get blindsided and pulled into a war when you are unprepeared. And that is something to be avoided generally in any case. If you get pulled into one then obviously you do the best you can, but that is irrelvant to my argument.



Again, a strawman. I already countered this and you're just going in circles. Air supremacy does NOT guarentee victory (I never said it does.) Nor does the fact that wars have been won without air supremacy mean it should be deprioritized.

You are just repeating points already countered, over and over again. This is a sign of insanity. I told you once before: Seek professional help and medication.



As long as I'm not a war crime advocating Hitler-wannabe like you, that's fine by me.

Click to expand...

This is clearly my fault because I had assumed people were not so literal. In science and engineering you'd often say "as a quantity approaches zero/infinity" to analyze a problem. It is my fault that I had assumed a technical background and not a literal reading of the words.

It would be as if a physics professor said "as distance r approaches infinity gravitational potential falls to 0" and someone scoffs "clearly this is a quack, everyone knows infinite distance does not physically exist". It would be the professor's fault for talking to the wrong audience in the wrong way.

I'm amused that you think I have a problem with looking up simple factual definitions. Ok, you win, I get a few details wrong as the minor fault, and assuming you are capable of a certain type of discourse as a major fault. Clearly analysis with a statement like "as sortie rate approaches zero" is something that is unsuitable for this level of discussion.

FairAndUnbiased said:

This is clearly my fault because I had assumed people were not so literal. In science and engineering you'd often say "as a quantity approaches zero/infinity" to analyze a problem. It is my fault that I had assumed a technical background and not a literal reading of the words.

It would be as if a physics professor said "as distance r approaches infinity gravitational potential falls to 0" and someone scoffs "clearly this is a quack, everyone knows infinite distance does not physically exist". It would be the professor's fault for talking to the wrong audience in the wrong way.

Click to expand...

Bullshit.

First of all, I work in a technical field and have some undergrad level physics training up to the Mechanics, Electrodynamics and basic QM level. Incidentally, I had a long electrodynamics related discussion on this forum (last year I think) with a bunch of members. So please don't lecture me about the concept the "Limit" in mathematics (and by the way, that's what it's called, "limit.")

Secondly, You were not using the term "0 sorties" as a metaphor, but a metric. You also doubled-down on this mistake when you made it clear that you prefer speaking in terms of "metrics." So I'm not falling for your facile and deceptive attempt at covering up your lack of understanding of basic warfare terminology by now pretending you didn't actually mean "0 sorties."

FairAndUnbiased said:

Ok, you win, I get a few details wrong as the minor fault, and assuming you are capable of a certain type of discourse as a major fault.

Click to expand...

You should really stop responding because you're only digging a deeper hole for yourself.

I'm saying this because I'm starting to feel bad for you.

An interesting debate between these two Americans about the possible war between China with the U.S. about Taiwan. One is a political advisor to then U.S. President Bill Clinton and the other is a retired seasoned diplomat who prognosticates that a Chinese armed reunification of Taiwan isn't forthcoming now or in the future. Take a listen and watch and see what you guys and gals think.

Mohsin77 said:

Bullshit.

First of all, I work in a technical field and have some undergrad level physics training up to the Mechanics, Electrodynamics and basic QM level. Incidentally, I had a long electrodynamics related discussion on this forum (last year I think) with a bunch of members. So please don't lecture me about the concept the "Limit" in mathematics (and by the way, that's what it's called, "limit.")

Secondly, You were not using the term "0 sorties" as a metaphor, but a metric. You also doubled-down on this mistake when you made it clear that you prefer speaking in terms of "metrics." So I'm not falling for your facile and deceptive attempt at covering up your lack of understanding of basic warfare terminology by now pretending you didn't actually mean "0 sorties."




You should really stop responding because you're only digging a deeper hole for yourself.

I'm saying this because I'm starting to feel bad for you.

Click to expand...

you have undergraduate physics courses. heh, ok. Let's say I accept your assertion of credentials. You brag about a few undergrad courses? That already tells me all I need to know about your caliber. I don't need to brag about a few individual courses. You work in 'a technical field'? makes it even more clear what you aren't. I work in semiconductor. I don't need to say 'technical field' to obfuscate.

lol I'm not digging any hole here. You are the one that is failing to understand very simple logic that has to be spelled out explicitly.

there's 2 sides, A and B.

if the sortie ratio between A and B is 1:1 then they have air parity.
if the sortie ratio between A and B is 1:0 then A has absolute air dominance.

clearly there's some number between 1:1 and 1:0 where 1 side gains air supremacy. From your posts, 20:1 is still too high by your standards, since your implication is that Russia has failed to get air supremacy and is failing in Ukraine because of it yet that's the sortie ratio between Russian Air Force and Ukrainian Air Force.

furthermore, at what sortie ratio should offensive action be taken? is it going to be 1:1? 1:0? Your implication that Russia is failing means that 20:1 sortie ratio is insufficient. Ok, then what does it have to be? What are you supposed to do in the meantime?

Mohsin77 said:

Bullshit.

First of all, I work in a technical field and have some undergrad level physics training up to the Mechanics, Electrodynamics and basic QM level. Incidentally, I had a long electrodynamics related discussion on this forum (last year I think) with a bunch of members. So please don't lecture me about the concept the "Limit" in mathematics (and by the way, that's what it's called, "limit.")

Secondly, You were not using the term "0 sorties" as a metaphor, but a metric. You also doubled-down on this mistake when you made it clear that you prefer speaking in terms of "metrics." So I'm not falling for your facile and deceptive attempt at covering up your lack of understanding of basic warfare terminology by now pretending you didn't actually mean "0 sorties."




You should really stop responding because you're only digging a deeper hole for yourself.

I'm saying this because I'm starting to feel bad for you.

Click to expand...

I found your EM discussion (1) (2). I absolutely believe you when you say you 'have some undergrad level physics training up to the Mechanics, Electrodynamics and basic QM level". But to put it more clearly, it is indeed only up to the undergrad, basic level.

to put it bluntly, it shows you can read a textbook and plug numbers. This is not disparging, that is a good skill to have. It shows that you at can think of the relevant facts and apply them.

Incidentally, I also had a discussion about physics recently. A few days ago me and @Stealthflanker had a discussion on whether jets can be seen taking off with IR satellites. He had a model that showed a geosynchronous satellite could indeed pick up a 1m2 radiator at afterburner temperatures, as a toy model of a jet plume.

I point out a problem with the assumption of an ideal blackbody: jet plumes aren't optically thick. that an ideal blackbody radiator only applies to optically thick sources, not optically thin ones. In the process I explained the derivation for the optically thin limit, which was not given (it used a Taylor expansion).

Hmm. How come I can point out problems with real world modeling? How come I can think of optical thickness as a blackbody radiation parameter and explain the derivation without being told what it is? How come I instantly can see that the derivation used a Taylor expansion? None of that is taught in basic undergrad physics, yet it is physics.

In the end, he provided a citation that said yes, at least IR events could be seen. And I presented a plausible scenario that would explain both the derivation and the citation. I learned something, hopefully he did too.

I don't need to assert my degree or what classes I've taken. To even talk about individual classes is laughable to me. Hope you understand.