Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
The key is to understand DPP is in some ways like the Nazi party in Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s. It is a party that works in a Democratic system, because initially it did not have the ability to seize and the secure the control or all the levers or government power by means outside the system.

But once it believes it has secured enough control over levers of government power, it will undoubtedly engineer a crisis that can be used to justify giving itself extraordinary powers. In nazi germany that was the Reichstag fire of 1934. Here It would undoubted be some sharpening of armed confrontation with mainland, perhaps involving some Taiwanese aircraft shot down, or maybe some perhaps fictional CCP cells discovered high up in government echelon. Once it has created the legal frame work of such extraordinary powers, of which the Nazi german counterpart was the enabling laws, the Democratic system would technically still be in place, but it would no longer have any influence, and the DPP will be ensconced in power without realistic prospect of being removed from power by Democratic means. Then it will be able to use the lever of government power to expunge the entire regional and national administrative bureaucracy and legislature of people who did not share DDP’s outlook and build a one party state inside the hollow shell of a Democratic system. It will then be free to revise all the education system to indoctrinate separation of Taiwanese and Chinese cultural identity, the closeness of Japanese and Taiwanese identity, or the closeness of Taiwanese and American political outlook. It will then be free to censor news and media, and shape internal debate, etc.

Path to dictatorships can go through democracy just as well as it can through military coup, internal rebellion and civil war, or imposition by external power. The path through democracy is the path the Nazi party had trodden in Germany, the GOP is attempting to tread in the US, and DDP is clearly attempting also to tread in Taiwan, and somewhat further along.
 
Last edited:

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
I don’t;t think the US

no, any working ground transportation system is of immensely more value to the side with air superiority. So if the chinese plan to gain air superiority over taiwan, then it would be idiotic to help the other side by blowing up more transportation infrastructure than the other side is able to do on its own.

Also, an attacker who drive people out of their homes by depriving them of basic sustenance do not tend to create any overwhelm desire to capitulate on the part of the defender, especially if it reminds the people on the defence side that the attacker had a famously poor track record for respecting people’s private property rights. Rather It tends to create a sense of anger towards the attacker and a determination to resist harder.
Huh???

If one side A has air superiority over an opponent B, and that opponent also has poor ground infrastructure, then side B cannot effectively maneuver while A can. That is a massive advantage. The biggest advantage would be if B forces had absolutely no ground infrastructure and could not maneuver at all, and just got hit from the air by A constantly until their morale broke or they did.

Depriving people of resources isn't for psychological reasons primarily, it is to deny them the physical basis of resistance. They can hate all they want. The volkstrum really hated the Soviets. Didn't matter in the end.
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
No, air superiority allows the side to take full advantage of ground transportation infrastructure. Lack of air superiority means you can’t use ground transportation infrastructure even if you had it because anything moving on it would be interdicted from the air.

If China had large land forces in Taiwan and effective air supremacy, then it can supply its forces much more easily and efficiently, advance more quickly, react to event more promptly, if it also had a intact ground transportation infrastructure to work with. Meanwhile Taiwanese forces can’t do much with ground transportation infrastructure even if they also have it, because anything moving along the transportation infrastructure will be attacked.
 
Last edited:

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
in fact, using established transportation infrastructure is so much more efficient for moving forces and logistics than moving cross country, it might be tempting to leave transportation infrastructure intact just so the enemy would be tempted to use it while you have air superiority, because that channelizes his movement and makes him substantially more vulnerable to interdiction by your airpower.

recall the epic avenue of death where a huge convoy of iraqis retreating on the main highway outside kuwait city was massacred by US air power.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
No, air superiority allows the side to take full advantage of ground transportation infrastructure. Lack of air superiority means you can’t use ground transportation infrastructure even if you had it because anything moving on it would be interdicted from the air.

If China had large land forces in Taiwan and effective air supremacy, then it can supply its forces much more easily and efficiently, advance more quickly, react to event more promptly, if it also had a intact ground transportation infrastructure to work with. Meanwhile Taiwanese forces can’t do much with ground transportation infrastructure even if they also have it, because anything moving along the transportation infrastructure will be attacked.
Destroying opposition ground infrastructure in the process of attaining air supremacy has occurred in every major war in the past 80 years. US didn't leave the Ho Chi Minh trail alone after all. They tried to destroy a single bridge in Hanoi something like 9 times.

Using the infrastructure is not so important in a small theater. Attrition of enemy forces is.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What a strategic blunder by the US. It should've left the bridge up and waited to destroy North Vietnamese forces as they crossed like in Iraq.

Why did they throw away aircraft at an 11-3 ratio for a useless objective?
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
Destroying opposition ground infrastructure in the process of attaining air supremacy has occurred in every major war in the past 80 years. US didn't leave the Ho Chi Minh trail alone after all. They tried to destroy a single bridge in Hanoi something like 9 times.

Using the infrastructure is not so important in a small theater. Attrition of enemy forces is.
the US destroyed ho chu minh trail
because it didn’t plan to send its own ground forces to attack along the go chi minh trail.

If you can bring enough bridging, road repair and other military logistic hardware with you, then you can afford to destroy enemy’s transportation infrastructure at the start to hinder his defence, then quickly build it back up to support your own offensive.

but if you can’t, then better not be too enthusiastic in destroying infrastructure that can make a world of difference to your next stage of the war.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
the US destroyed ho chu minh trail
because it didn’t plan to send its own ground forces to attack along the go chi minh trail.

If you can bring enough bridging, road repair and other military logistic hardware with you, then you can afford to destroy enemy’s transportation infrastructure at the start to hinder his defence, then quickly build it back up to support your own offensive.

but if you can’t, then better not be too enthusiastic in destroying infrastructure that can make a world of difference to your next stage of the war.
It wasn't limited to the Ho Chi Minh trail. They bombed bridges and tunnels everywhere scores Vietnam including South Vietnam.

Taiwan is much smaller than Vietnam. It is about 100 km across side to side. All of it's built up infrastructure is on the coast. Their back is to the mountains and oceans.

Amphibious forces have the key advantage of striking at a variety of places along the littoral while land based forces in built up areas are constrained by existing infrastructure and terrain. Replace that infrastructure with rubble and it stops wheeled vehicles dead in their tracks and tracked vehicles are significantly slowed.

Air supremacy alone doesn't guarantee supremacy on the ground because of cover, which Iraq didn't have. It guarantees supremacy if used to immobilize enemy formations which allows each individual enemy formation to be eliminated piecemeal.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I don’t;t think the US

no, any working ground transportation system is of immensely more value to the side with air superiority. So if the chinese plan to gain air superiority over taiwan, then it would be idiotic to help the other side by blowing up more transportation infrastructure than the other side is able to do on its own.

My view is that it is really easy for the defender to blow up bridges when it suits them. Seriously, the defender already controls the bridges and just need to attach enough explosives to do the job the day before.

So why not destroy the bridges at the beginning, so the defenders don't get any use out of them as well?

We can see that the Ukrainians have blown up all the bridges across the Siversky River in the Donbass and instantly halted the recent Russian push in the Donbass.

So the lesson here is to ensure there are enough bridging units to cross rivers when necessary.


Also, an attacker who drive people out of their homes by depriving them of basic sustenance do not tend to create any overwhelm desire to capitulate on the part of the defender, especially if it reminds the people on the defence side that the attacker had a famously poor track record for respecting people’s private property rights. Rather It tends to create a sense of anger towards the attacker and a determination to resist harder.

Of course, that assumes the defenders aren't going hungry and not enduring sweltering heat due to the lack of air conditioning in their apartments. Hunger really sharpens the survival instinct.

And my read is that Taiwan will be run on a SAR basis like Hong Kong where private property rights are respected.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Ok, people really need to stop confusing China with Russia, and Taiwan with Ukraine. So many posts on so-called lessons that are not even remotely applicable.

It looks like Russia is settling in for an extended war with NATO in Ukraine. NATO countries are sending a lot of military aid into Ukraine, and there are reports that Americans are running the show on the ground there.

What does this mean for China?

First, it means the US is going to be distracted for the next decade. This war is going to be long and costly, and while Russia is going to pay in lives, NATO is going to pay in resources. The American MIC is going to be busy supplying this war for years to come. The corollary to that is, the MIC just found its new profit engine, and they're not going to be interested in escalating hostilities with China in the near future.

A while ago, there were speculations on here about China starting an arms race with the US in order to accelerate its collapse like the Soviet Union. Well, it looks like we've found something better: the US is now in an arms race with Russia.

The best part is this: where NATO was trying to transition away from counter-insurgency into fighting a peer adversary, they are now on the path to transitioning into fighting with the *wrong* peer adversary. The war in Ukraine is almost entirely land-based. NATO is going to be very busy making weapon systems to fight a land-based war, and an asymmetric one at that. They're going to concentrate on drones, ATGMs, and mobile anti-air systems. In other words, they're not going to be preparing for a war with China over Taiwan.

This is why I'm increasingly confident that we won't see any conflict over Taiwan anytime soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top