Even harder to intercept than aerial suicide drones. On the plus side their range is somewhat limited. I have a nagging suspicion that they were deployed off cargo ships.
Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
- Status
Even harder to intercept than aerial suicide drones. On the plus side their range is somewhat limited. I have a nagging suspicion that they were deployed off cargo ships.
All the talk in MSM about splitting China and ASEAN is a plot. US and Australia already know that, once RCEP coming into being, west lost ASEAN.
Let me first try to lay out some counter-points of the argument:
(1) China's support to the communist movement in 60s.
(2) Stereotypes and perception of China being poor.
(3) Some unpleasant history involved in some of the ASEAN countries.
Now let me try to lay out some fuel-points of the argument:
(1) ASEAN share some colonial experience with China in the hands of the west.
(2) ASEAN has by far the largest share of Chinese diaspora.
(3) ASEAN share cultural and philosophical inclination toward development against conflict.
(4) ASEAN see their moment is already here vis-a-vis Africa, Latin-America and now even Europe.
(5) RCEP is a monumental accomplishment because it help realize a region free trade zone of China, Japan, Korea.
(6) In PPP or real economic output, ASEAN is already by far the largest and most advanced regional economic bloc, with the largest market and the most potent supply chains. It one day could rival US+EU to that regard.
(7) ASEAN has a lot of room to grow before the whole bloc approach OECD level.
(8) As long as China maintain its strategic poise, there is no way external forces can split ASEAN from China.
(9) Japan and Korea make all the anti-China noises. But they know in their heart that their future is with RCEP.
It's honestly not very useful for China. It's perfectly fine for Ukraine to use against Russia inside what is basically a glorified lake, much less useful to be used against the US when even their short-legged fighters can span a combat radius of 600+ km and where their carrier fleets will be protected by a robust fleet of rotary-winged aviation. Any system like that would, at minimum, need to be submersible. Even then, water-based drones used as a strike asset simply don't deliver the kind of prompt and effective fires the PLA needs when confronting the world's biggest and strongest carrier fleet. If nothing else, the US CSGs can turn around and outrun the bomb ships.
tl;dr buy more missiles. The PLARF and PLAAF are China's best military assets.
Honestly listening to Americans talk about splitting ASEAN from China is hilarious. Speaking as someone who does come from an ASEAN country, the only reason ASEAN nations are friendly with the US at all is that it helps increase the negotiation power of our countries. China is Indopacific's predominant power, and so bringing in another superpower helps secure a better negotiating position. It's primarily an economic and geopolitical balancing act.
If America thinks that they can involve ASEAN countries in a war with China, then they are utterly deluded. There is no world where ASEAN would prefer American hegemony over a balance of powers, and quite frankly there's no world where ASEAN would prefer colonialist hegemony over Chinese hegemony.
Agree that Indonesia will be neutral in the event of a US-China conflict.
Indonesia is a sprawling archipelago, with bulk of population in island of Java.
Its far flung territories are highly vulnerable if invaded by superior military. Thus places like Natuna island or part of Kalimantan could be invaded if China decides to counter belligerent act from Indonesian side.
Indonesia is a sprawling archipelago, with bulk of population in island of Java.
Its far flung territories are highly vulnerable if invaded by superior military. Thus places like Natuna island or part of Kalimantan could be invaded if China decides to counter belligerent act from Indonesian side.
I really wanted to understand your willingness to believe that only the linked economy could somehow emphasize some neutrality of a country. History itself clearly demonstrates to everyone that just a linked economy is no guarantee of avoiding conflicts, combined with a whole set of alliances, including military (which China does not have but the US does), it even makes sense to claim this, but to say that having an economic interdependence alone prevents conflict is total nonsense. There are a multitude of factors to explain the absence of direct conflicts between two economically interdependent countries, but only one economic dependence is not strong enough to explain this, perhaps countries involved in free trade fight less often for some other reason, such as the fact that they also tend to be more democratic. Democratic countries make war less often than empires and so on, this does not explain the current context at all.
Want a very recent example that we're looking at right now?
Europe.
The EU/NATO is waging an indirect and even direct military conflict if you consider ISR assets as hostile targets for Russia while condemning yourself because of Russian gas and imposed sanctions, Europe's situation of interdependence with Russia clearly shows that this is the biggest illusion created, before you claim that Russia only has gas to offer and that China offers much more in economic terms in this interdependence, the real world works only with energy, without energy nothing works, in terms of of priority, energy is the front of the economy that moves the world, Europe is bringing to reality a very clear refutation that trade and interdependence do not avoid conflicts, perhaps direct because they can involve nuclear weapons and other factors, but indirect is totally refuted . Furthermore, Russia sells titanium which is vital to Europe's aeronautical industry as well as a number of other essential primary products in Europe's developed world and this alone has not helped to avoid indirect conflict.
Also, Patch is wrong. At the very least, the US economy would fall by 40%, taking the rest of the world along, including China. What that RAND study that you assume must not have taken into account that unlike the Great Depression that occurred because of the New York stock market crash (financial crisis), the scenario here is of a war in which world would come to a standstill, freight rates would skyrocket, look at the Covid case and world transport, if you want to look at how the world economy would react to a possible general conflict in the Western Pacific, look at the world economy of 2020, only it would be something at least 3x worse, including the factor that the economy today is much more globalized than it was in the 30s of the last century and the American economy depends on this globalization just like the rest of the world.
This subject is already buried for me. If you believe in neutrality, fine, I accept your argument, but I don't agree.
Bismark also sought a balance of power in Europe with Germany. How did it end decades later?
Patchwork was simply referencing what he had seen/heard. And have you actually read the original RAND study? I did a post here many years ago with some critiques.
As a generalisation, we can all agree an actual US-China war will result another global Great Depression.
I provided numerous sources and surveys on ASEAN/Indonesia believing that:
1. In the Asia region, China is more important and powerful than the US
2. In a US-China conflict, they should stay neutral
What do you have?
Have you actually travelled or lived in the ASEAN region before?
bajingan
Senior Member
I am from indonesia, and the idea that indonesia will allow armed overflight of B-52s enganging in direct hostilities against China is laughable, when vietnam a country who has more powerful military than indonesia and has history of direct hostilities will never allow such overflights, let alone indonesia a country with no prior hostilities against China with far weaker military, btw our navy is such a bad shape that recently our german made sub just sunk, with the loss of all crew inside.
And say if indonesia for argument sake decided to "indirectly" support the us, when the hostilities ceased win or lose, what do you think going to happen to indonesian economy? China will remember who is who, and will punish any nations that support us armed agression against her, economic embargoes and trade sanctions will be delivered with vengeance against indonesia, China is indonesia's biggest trading partner and largest source of investments, will the us and japan able or willing to compensate indonesia economic damage? No we will be discarded like a used condom
There are a variety of surveys that show different results. China's influence over asean has been gaining this past year. But in the end, the view of public doesn't matter that much. If pla wins the initial engagement like we expect, then all surrounding asean nations will have no choice but to follow china.
I don't know why you keep mentioning Russia. Russia has weak conventional military. It doesn't dare attacking the weapon coming in to Ukraine or the isr assets that are helping Ukraine. China will have no of that. China is looking to blast through every adversary within second island chain. Do you think Indonesia will stand against that and get punished?
- Status