Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Biscuits said:

Another interesting point is that late USSR air defenses are now battle proven with good results.

China's own systems represent a further advancement on that development, and there's much much more of them, plus they have way better ISR than Ukraine has.

Russia has a bomber fleet of 182 aircraft vs US with 162. With just a handful of S300 and Buk paralysing RU bomber fleet, the prognosis is bad for US bomber fleet, especially since Russians reduced their bomb carrying capacity in exchange for missile trucks, but US still runs around with many bombers that need to be incredibly close to target.

Of particular interest is how Lvov was almost untouched by Russian bombing power. In terms of strategic depth, Lvov is Ukraine's deepest stronghold, but it is not that far from hostile borders. In an US assault scenario, Liaoning or Shanghai has about equal strategic depth to Lvov when it comes to distance from hostile airbases.

Furthermore, China has vast internal cities like Chengdu, Xian, Chongqing, Nanning etc. If 182 Russian bombers struggle so much to get to Lvov against a vastly inferior air defense, you can pretty much forget the threat of 162 US bombers against cities that have tens of times more strategic depth than Lvov.

The takeaway message, as long as China keeps a vast and modern air defense network, its industrial core remains very safe. It is simply not viable to throw away bomber crews to terror bomb civilian targets, even on the most exposed coastal cities. Instead, the major bombing threat in a war would be eventual US Iskander/Kinzhal equivalents.

Click to expand...

As a vehicle of terror, the ballistic missile is quite effective. But its battlefield impact in practice is little more than that of a heavy artillery shell — and an extraordinarily expensive one at that.

Ballistic missiles are but one instrument in the Chinese national orchestra of violence. Treating them as if they are something more is a trap. They are no scarier than any other weapon in the hands of an expansionist, totalitarian, ultranationalist, genocidal, communist regime.

Click to expand...

Their top think tanks who get paid to produce papers for the government literally think 5 kg payload is the same as 500 kg of payload, that 50 km of range is the same as 500 km of range. They are totally ignoring how Ukrainian Tochkas hit hard against Russian bases while Russian Iskanders savaged Ukrainian fuel and ammo dumps early on.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Their top think tanks who get paid to produce papers for the government literally think 5 kg payload is the same as 500 kg of payload, that 50 km of range is the same as 500 km of range. They are totally ignoring how Ukrainian Tochkas hit hard against Russian bases while Russian Iskanders savaged Ukrainian fuel and ammo dumps early on.

Click to expand...

US ideological hatred of advanced rocketry likely comes from the fact they struggle a lot with these techs.

Even with Russia's severe decline, US was still forced to buy Russian rocket engines. After Putin banned further sales, US is now using their stockpiled Russian engines for orbital launches.

America struggles to put even supersonic weapons in service at sufficient scale, and hypersonic tech seems to elude them completely so far.

In a way, the missile industry is to America a bit like the turbofan industry is to China. They can make working stuff but not top tier stuff, and the top tier stuff they do make isn't reliable enough to be used.

I think China also had a phase where they categorically rejected CVs as useless waste of resources, simply because America had CVs and China didn't. Then eventually, CVs found a useful spot in the PLA doctrine anyways and became praised as potent weapon. The same will probably happen once US develops its first Iskander/Kinzhal equivalents.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Their top think tanks who get paid to produce papers for the government literally think 5 kg payload is the same as 500 kg of payload, that 50 km of range is the same as 500 km of range. They are totally ignoring how Ukrainian Tochkas hit hard against Russian bases while Russian Iskanders savaged Ukrainian fuel and ammo dumps early on.

Click to expand...

Ian Easton is a paid shrill. Often times, you find people like this, Gordon Chang, after year in year out of making bad predictions, is still in business. Hopefully, those in charge in the U.S. is able to separate propaganda from reality. Hopefully, someone in charge of the Pentagon is more aware of reality.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Another way to put it, regarding @Petrolicious88's final point, here's a scenario for you guys:

Let's assume that you are the Commander-in-Chief (CIC) of the Armed Forces of country/region A.

The following is what you do know from the very beginning:

1. Country/region B, which is a neighbour of your country/region, has 1000 civilians. The bilateral relations between the two country/region has always been tense, and many people from both countries/regions are far from being fond of the opposing side.

2. One day, relations between country/region B and your country/region got so bad that your government decides to go to war against country/region B.

3. Your country/region has a much more powerful militarythan country/region B. This means your country/region would have absolute chances of victory against country/region B.

4. This presents you, as the CIC of the Armed Forces of your country/region with 2 distinct choices - Either you could go the gentle but slow method, in order to minimize collateral damage and loss of life, or you could go rough but swift method, in order to achieve a quick and decisive victory.

Then, let's assume that some military experts of your country/region conducted a rough study and concluded the following:

1. If you choose the rough but swift method, the war against country/region B could be won within 5-6 months.

2. If you choose the gentle but slow method, the war against country/region B could only be won within 2.5-3 years.

But then, those military experts followed up with another rough study and concluded the following:

1. If you choose the rough but swift method, it is estimated that a whooping 20 civilians of country/region B could become war fatalities every month during the war.

2. If you choose the gentle but slow method, it is estimated that a meager 5 civilians of country/region B could become war fatalities every month during the war.

Those military experts then presented their findings to you.

But then, a military advisor hurriedly came to you with this news report:

"In case of war being waged by country/region A against country/region B, then country/region C (which is a well known supporter and ally of country/region B) would provide material, financial and intelligence support for country/region B. If the war between country/region A and country/region B becomes worse, then country/region C would consider intervening on the side of country/region B and fight against country/region A in order to help defend country/region B."

You also know very well that the military power of country/region C is a (near) comparable peer to your country/region.

The military advisor then explained that in case country/region C decides to intervene in the war, it is estimated that the military of country/region C could be considerably mobilized and sent to war within 4-6 months, and also could be fully mobilized and sent to war within 1-1.5 years.

Last but not least, he estimated that in case country/region C decides to intervene, the war could potentially last for another 1-2 years than originally envisioned, albeit victory for your country/region can be guaranteed.

Therefore, as the CIC of the Armed Forces of country/region A, here a question for you: What method would you choice?

Please analyse diligently and think carefully.

Click to expand...

1. given the 2.5-3 year estimate of the slow method and 5 civilians a month, that's 150-180 civilians total dead. the fast method of 5-6 months with 20 civilian dead a month is 100-120 civilians total dead.

Civilian casualties: lower for fast method

2. given probability of intervention from C within 4-6 months, if you use fast method, the war will end in 5-6 months. There is only a 1/6 chance of C intervention in that case assuming equal probability of victory in month 5 and 6 (1/2 each), and equal probability of C intervening in month 4, 5 and 6 (1/3 each).

Probability of intervention: lower for fast method

Conclusion: fast and brutal is the way to go.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Another way to put it, regarding @Petrolicious88's final point, here's a scenario for you guys:

Let's assume that you are the Commander-in-Chief (CIC) of the Armed Forces of country/region A.

The following is what you do know from the very beginning:

1. Country/region B, which is a neighbour of your country/region, has 1000 civilians. The bilateral relations between the two country/region has always been tense, and many people from both countries/regions are far from being fond of the opposing side.

2. One day, relations between country/region B and your country/region got so bad that your government decides to go to war against country/region B.

3. Your country/region has a much more powerful militarythan country/region B. This means your country/region would have absolute chances of victory against country/region B.

4. This presents you, as the CIC of the Armed Forces of your country/region with 2 distinct choices - Either you could go the gentle but slow method, in order to minimize collateral damage and loss of life, or you could go rough but swift method, in order to achieve a quick and decisive victory.

Then, let's assume that some military experts of your country/region conducted a rough study and concluded the following:

1. If you choose the rough but swift method, the war against country/region B could be won within 5-6 months.

2. If you choose the gentle but slow method, the war against country/region B could only be won within 2.5-3 years.

But then, those military experts followed up with another rough study and concluded the following:

1. If you choose the rough but swift method, it is estimated that a whooping 20 civilians of country/region B could become war fatalities every month during the war.

2. If you choose the gentle but slow method, it is estimated that a meager 5 civilians of country/region B could become war fatalities every month during the war.

Those military experts then presented their findings to you.

But then, a military advisor hurriedly came to you with this news report:

"In case of war being waged by country/region A against country/region B, then country/region C (which is a well known supporter and ally of country/region B) would provide material, financial and intelligence support for country/region B. If the war between country/region A and country/region B becomes worse, then country/region C would consider intervening on the side of country/region B and fight against country/region A in order to help defend country/region B."

You also know very well that the military power of country/region C is a (near) comparable peer to your country/region.

The military advisor then explained that in case country/region C decides to intervene in the war, it is estimated that the military of country/region C could be considerably mobilized and sent to war within 4-6 months, and also could be fully mobilized and sent to war within 1-1.5 years.

Last but not least, he estimated that in case country/region C decides to intervene, the war could potentially last for another 1-2 years than originally envisioned, albeit victory for your country/region can be guaranteed.

Therefore, as the CIC of the Armed Forces of country/region A, here a question for you: What method would you choice?

Please analyse diligently and think carefully.

Click to expand...

War is politics in another means. It depends on what other political goal you have in starting this war. If you just want to conquer country B with the least amount of complications, I would definitely go for the swift method regardless of casualties. In a different scenario, you may want to demonstrate to both country C and the world that an intervention is futile. In that case, you will want a slow war or even an embargo to invite a response from country C.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Therefore, as the CIC of the Armed Forces of country/region A, here a question for you: What method would you choice?

Click to expand...

Depends on the political goals of A and B. The political goals for (A=Russia, B=Ukraine) are different from (A=China, B=Taiwan).

We know C's goals, since they are notorious shit stirrers.

For (China, Taiwan), I think one key A political goal is to not kill too many B civilians. One unknown to me is whether B will dare attack A's civilian centers directly, which is a possibility as some (many?) of B's political class are brainwashed cucks of C and another entity J, and have been subjected to propaganda that dehumanizes A people for decades. OTOH, I also think that the vast majority of B's political class are unprincipled thieving opportunists, and hopefully they will balk at doing so to keep their chances of getting positions in the new B government when fighting is over.

If B, at the instigation of C and J, attack A's civilian centers, how should A respond?

There is a 5th element here: RoW, the rest of the world. As long as C retains its power, wars will happen, but any given conflict will end or pause (like Chinese civil war) at some point in time. RoW already knows C is shit. RoW thinks A will displace C as the #1 power eventually. RoW is unsure whether that will usher in a less violent "new world order" (TM) or it will just be a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". How A behaves in event of armed conflict with B (with or without C and J) will inform RoW's position.

Lesson is China will not be fighting US alone politically, economically and militarily, It will be fighting US, Japan and Western Europe. As Ukraine has shown, US allies will sacrifice their economies if need be. All Chinese assets govt or private outside China will be confiscated en masse. The playbook used against Russia will be enhanced, updated and more swift in implementation. All of this will be done without giving 2 shits to any sorts of international law.

Hence, my query is what are the counter-moves China can conceive?

Feima said:

Depends on the political goals of A and B. The political goals for (A=Russia, B=Ukraine) are different from (A=China, B=Taiwan).

We know C's goals, since they are notorious shit stirrers.

For (China, Taiwan), I think one key A political goal is to not kill too many B civilians. One unknown to me is whether B will dare attack A's civilian centers directly, which is a possibility as some (many?) of B's political class are brainwashed cucks of C and another entity J, and have been subjected to propaganda that dehumanizes A people for decades. OTOH, I also think that the vast majority of B's political class are unprincipled thieving opportunists, and hopefully they will balk at doing so to keep their chances of getting positions in the new B government when fighting is over.

If B, at the instigation of C and J, attack A's civilian centers, how should A respond?

There is a 5th element here: RoW, the rest of the world. As long as C retains its power, wars will happen, but any given conflict will end or pause (like Chinese civil war) at some point in time. RoW already knows C is shit. RoW thinks A will displace C as the #1 power eventually. RoW is unsure whether that will usher in a less violent "new world order" (TM) or it will just be a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". How A behaves in event of armed conflict with B (with or without C and J) will inform RoW's position.

Click to expand...

Russia's goal is to use Ukraine's separatist conflict to gain some new strategic territory, it is not even close to as important for them as it is for China to maintain its own home territory.

The situation on the ground is more like (A=Ukraine, B=Donbass) and (A=China, B=Taiwan), through there are big differences in how Kiev and Beijing operate.

China is for example not nearly as desparate. The foreigner threatening Ukraine has 5 times more population, several times more gdp, direct land border and a much larger army, while Ukraine has stagnated economically and its army development is limited to low tech imports and rounds of general draft. While the foreigner threatening China has 4 times less population, 30% less gdp, is separated by the whole Pacific, and China broadly keeps good growth while developing new advanced weapons constantly. Although the threat does have a larger standing army than China.

So therefore China for example does not need to employ terror shelling tactics against separatist regions, because they're in a good enough spot that there could be a safe political resolution assuming no foreign countries send troops. Nor does China have a shortage of professional volunteers for the PLA so that alternative "national battalions" need to be created to control mass conscripts.

If invaded, China will use every means to resist, including "dirty" ones. Collaborators cease to be considered either civilians nor citizens.

Handful of 300-1000km scud equivalent SRBM in the hands of rebels is not really a serious threat no matter where they send them. China has a huge ISR network to find the launchers, and without any eyes of its own, ROC cannot complete the kill chain on any important targets on the mainland. If large saturation attacks cant be launched, they will just be intercepted. We also have no idea about CEP for these systems, but generally self made weapons from actors on that level are not impressive in accuracy. Chances of someone on the mainland getting parts of a ROC rocket on their home is swimmingly low when you take into account interception, decoys, EW and straight up misses due to tech limitation. And the reply on ROC decision making centers will be swift and decisive using MLRS, PGMs and cruise/ballistic missiles with <1m CEP.

Well, to be fair, regardless of if Taiwan launches rockets at Fujian or not, they will still get bombed into rubble anyways if US is attacking through them.

phrozenflame said:

Lesson is China will not be fighting US alone politically, economically and militarily, It will be fighting US, Japan and Western Europe. As Ukraine has shown, US allies will sacrifice their economies if need be. All Chinese assets govt or private outside China will be confiscated en masse. The playbook used against Russia will be enhanced, updated and more swift in implementation. All of this will be done without giving 2 shits to any sorts of international law.

Hence, my query is what are the counter-moves China can conceive?

Click to expand...

Who do you think invests more into who? The west into China or vice versa?

Nothing stops China from laying down the demands to the Europeans first. Sever ties with the invader, or have all your assets nationalized.

In the few weeks leading up to war or immediately after US attacks, China can ban every useful consumer goods export to America, including the semiconductors which US depends on getting from either China or SK. Going even further, China can threaten to sicc NK and Russia on SK if SK does not abide by Chinese sanctions.

Obviously, in some years, Americans can likely recover most critical goods, but there will be months or up to a year of severe shortage at the most critical moments for the US military.

If US calls Japan or not, I'm not sure it's that certain. Calling Japan will give China a massive morale and legitimacy boost. Japan is also far from safe against bombings and eventually becoming sandwiched between Russia and China.

All that is assuming that US side attacks first of course, either through a rigged referendum in Taiwan province, direct military force against PLA, rebel troops firing on govt troops etc.

China will have a hard time politically justifying a first strike on US in Asia, but that's why Beijing will not commit such a random unforced error.

phrozenflame said:

Lesson is China will not be fighting US alone politically, economically and militarily, It will be fighting US, Japan and Western Europe. As Ukraine has shown, US allies will sacrifice their economies if need be. All Chinese assets govt or private outside China will be confiscated en masse. The playbook used against Russia will be enhanced, updated and more swift in implementation. All of this will be done without giving 2 shits to any sorts of international law.

Hence, my query is what are the counter-moves China can conceive?

Click to expand...

How many times do you expect Europe and Japan to be able to sacrifice their economies? When this current crisis is over, we'll be living in a different world. By 2027 Europe may have a rapidly deindustrialising economy half the size of China's, Japan will be the fifth largest economy after India and Germany. The US is eating their allies. While the US share of world GDP remains steady at around a quarter, this is only possible by transferring economic activity from American allies to the US. In 2027, Japan will be irrelevant economically and Europe will be much weaker and struggling with a dissatisfied population and looking warily at a rearming Russia.

China's best move is to wait and build its own strength while enjoying the spectacle of watching the west go down