Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Sinnavuuty said:

That is, if China controls the SCS by carrying out a blockade, will all countries passively accept it? Following a few pages of another topic, it was mentioned that China would go to war if the US and allies carried out the blockade of the SCS, but when it comes to China will all countries in the region passively accept this without reacting?

The destruction is mutual. What do you think will happen if China carries out a blockade on Taiwan? Extend this to the entire SCS involving all countries in the region that are China's biggest trading partners.

As I have already said, I do not believe in the neutrality of any country in the region.

The US too, be it militarily and diplomatically. Did you consider that in your equation?

So is total victory certain for China? Do you guarantee this at the operational level?

Click to expand...

If China does not wipe out US forces from Japan and Guam, then America does not need to be flying B-52s from Tindal to attack Spratley. It can attack China from Guam or even bases in Japan. If China looks like it's losing, then even South Korea and Philippines could be compelled to join us to assist US efforts. Indonesian neutrality is basically irrelevant at that point. And yes, I do expect Indonesia to side with America if China is losing. Nobody wants to be on the side of the loser.

America will have no ability to force Indonesia to do anything if China destroys all of its bases in Japan/Guam. I don't think you are fully appreciating how much stronger China is than surrounding nations. Indonesia is a little further than the rest of ASEAN countries, so it does have a little more room to maneuver. However, I fully anticipate China to be utilizing naval facilities in Cambodia in a shooting war. From there (and even Spratley), it is pretty easy for China to destroy Indonesia military if Indonesia decides to go against China.

Sinnavuuty said:

Why would they think that? And even more, why would they not react when they are attacking national soil? PS: they said the same thing about the Ukrainians
The argument is that China has enough military power to wipe out countries in the region, Japan would have to be the first to adopt neutrality because the country's destruction is certain if it enters a conflict with China.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Japan is pretty much guaranteed to fully destruction at this point if it participated, that's why Japanese are basically hesistant to throw themselves into conflict even if China attacks American bases in Japan.

for example, Japanese government officials have told me that attacks on US bases wouldn’t necessarily constitute an attack on Japan enough to trigger the clause that allows them self-defense. But we’ve had that understanding for quite some time, I mean, we even fought a whole war in Vietnam and the Japanese wouldn’t let us use Japanese bases for combat reasons during the Vietnam war. If China attacks the United States, you could also say that that creates a lot of disincentive for countries to allow the United States to engage in military operations from their territory if China has already demonstrated the willingness to use military force against those bases. So China will also go to countries and say, “listen, we won’t do anything to you as long as you don’t allow the Americans to operate,” and then that sort of puts the burden on them to make that decision.

Click to expand...

Sinnavuuty said:

The objection is not the source of the argument, but rather the cooperation that can occur indirectly or even directly in the war effort.

This is exactly why it depends on other allies in the region as well as all other countries allying with the US in multinational exercises.

Of course they can. It's punishing. Not in a hard power mode, but in an asymmetrical way, deterrence through hard power was in effect until February 24, 2022. And hard power did not prevent the reformulation of the European security architecture, even under an alleged modernization of the Russians in the program that started way back in 2008.

Click to expand...

That's because Russia is weak. China is so much stronger than Russian conventionally.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

I'm not as optimistic WRT this field, but that might just myself being more conservative.


Another big problem that should be mentioned would be how PLAN should counter Virginia SSNs when they are armed with hypersonic missiles in the coming future:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... which largely doesn't require them to come close to within tens of kilometers (and subsequently, ASW coverage of the PLAN) to launch their payload(?)

I have confidence that PLAN's ASW capability is sufficient within the First Island Chain, but what happens outside that chain is really concerning. Unless the PLAN does not plan to operate beyond the First Island Chain (even for a Taiwan AR scenario), then this would be something important that those in the August 1st building would have to resolve ASAP and with due diligence.

No wonder Winston Churchill proclaimed that the "U-boat peril" is what scared him the most during the entire WW2.

Click to expand...

well, we can hardly expect US to stand still, they will eventually get their own hypersonic missiles as well. But you need a sufficient number for them to have effect, as seen with the lack of effect from Kinzhal. 2025 is a fair bit of time, and who knows if they will have it finished even by then.

Hence why its an arms race. But I don't think China is resting on its laurels either. They have already performed tests on hypersonic planes and earlier made wind tunnel models for dropping payloads from hypersonic atmospheric vehicles.

Even if the 2025 US military will be upgraded compared to the current one, can US keep up with how the PLA will transform in the same timespan?

tphuang said:

If China does not wipe out US forces from Japan and Guam, then America does not need to be flying B-52s from Tindal to attack Spratley. It can attack China from Guam or even bases in Japan. If China looks like it's losing, then even South Korea and Philippines could be compelled to join us to assist US efforts. Indonesian neutrality is basically irrelevant at that point. And yes, I do expect Indonesia to side with America if China is losing. Nobody wants to be on the side of the loser.

America will have no ability to force Indonesia to do anything if China destroys all of its bases in Japan/Guam. I don't think you are fully appreciating how much stronger China is than surrounding nations. Indonesia is a little further than the rest of ASEAN countries, so it does have a little more room to maneuver. However, I fully anticipate China to be utilizing naval facilities in Cambodia in a shooting war. From there (and even Spratley), it is pretty easy for China to destroy Indonesia military if Indonesia decides to go against China.

Yeah, Japan is pretty much guaranteed to fully destruction at this point if it participated, that's why Japanese are basically hesistant to throw themselves into conflict even if China attacks American bases in Japan.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That's because Russia is weak. China is so much stronger than Russian conventionally.

Click to expand...

Honestly the difference is absolutely insane when you consider 400+ drones built with mass produced civilian grade Chinese tech can change the situation almost overnight in Russia and EU's full scale proxy war.

Russian economy is similar sized to UK. China is 130% of America and god knows how much more in industrial output (probably around 2-3x).

Since NATO is seeing limited success against Russia right now, there is a risk like how in ww2, Japanese leaders were drunk on past successes and went headlong into war with USA. Japanese success against (ironically) Russia, made them believe they can take on any western country and win, despite the great difference in actual industrial output.

It isn't rational for US to invade, but they may get the wrong idea and start something ill advisable. It wouldn't be the first time in history something like this happened.

tphuang said:

If China does not wipe out US forces from Japan and Guam, then America does not need to be flying B-52s from Tindal to attack Spratley. It can attack China from Guam or even bases in Japan. If China looks like it's losing, then even South Korea and Philippines could be compelled to join us to assist US efforts. Indonesian neutrality is basically irrelevant at that point. And yes, I do expect Indonesia to side with America if China is losing. Nobody wants to be on the side of the loser.

America will have no ability to force Indonesia to do anything if China destroys all of its bases in Japan/Guam. I don't think you are fully appreciating how much stronger China is than surrounding nations. Indonesia is a little further than the rest of ASEAN countries, so it does have a little more room to maneuver. However, I fully anticipate China to be utilizing naval facilities in Cambodia in a shooting war. From there (and even Spratley), it is pretty easy for China to destroy Indonesia military if Indonesia decides to go against China.

Click to expand...

I got tired of Indonesia. Everyone believes what they want.

tphuang said:

Yeah, Japan is pretty much guaranteed to fully destruction at this point if it participated, that's why Japanese are basically hesistant to throw themselves into conflict even if China attacks American bases in Japan.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That's because Russia is weak. China is so much stronger than Russian conventionally.

Click to expand...

An article from 2018 doesn't seem forced, does it?

If it's to use fonts against fonts, I have a recent and much more reliable font you posted that totally refutes this hesitation you so often claim:

The article clearly demonstrates that Japan's previous strategy is shifting to a more aggressive phase and willing to defend Taiwan in a framework of cooperation with various other actors, including the US. I am seeing just the opposite of a hesitation on the part of Japan regarding China and Taiwan.

Biscuits said:

Russian economy is similar sized to UK.

Click to expand...

So we keep hearing. But I will give you some hard statistics.

Electricity Production (2021): 1,157,000 GWh (Russia), 1,030,000 (Japan), 584,000 (Germany), 309,000 (UK), 287,000 (Italy)
Crude Steel Production (2021): 96.3 million metric tons (Japan), 75.6 (Russia), 40.1 (Germany), 24.4 (Italy), 7.2 (UK)
Hydraulic Cement Production (2014): 69 million metric tons (Russia), 58 (Japan), 31 (Germany), 22 (Italy), 7.9 (UK in 2012)
Diesel Oil Production (2016): 71,599 thousand metric tons (Russia), 48,557 (Japan), 42,808 (Germany), 31,358 (Italy), 22,936 (UK)
Motor Vehicle Production (2021): 7,846,955 (Japan), 3,308,692 (Germany), 1,566,317 (Russia), 932,488 (UK), 795,856 (Italy)

UK is big in Financialization. You have London Stock Exchange, the insurance market, and things like that. Services. Not hard production.

tygyg1111 said:

As another user already mentioned, Indonesia is going to lean towards whoever they think will win.
Another point of consideration for Indonesia is that China is a lot closer than the US, but again, refer to point 1.
Re: bolded text, saying something does not mean they are wholeheartedly behind it. They get benefits from playing towards both sides, and will continue to do so as long as it lasts.

Click to expand...

Indonesia playing both sides is the textbook definition of neutrality. That suits China fine but screws up US plans to use Indonesia to contain or attack China

Sinnavuuty said:

Opinion polls are worthless. I showed you a clear example of a nation that less than 1/4 supported the abandonment of neutrality just 6 years before and in 2022 this country completely changed its posture. I've also sent you sources showing you similar backgrounds and that's just plain silly. There is no guarantee of neutrality, this is one of the biggest mistakes a planner will be making.

Click to expand...

Look at the reasons why neutrality was abandoned. A big part was that the Russian Army, Russian Air Force and Russian MIC severely underperformed expectations and has become a spent force in the past 6 months.

Russia doesn't pose a serious conventional military threat, particularly since Europe/EU (which includes Finland and Sweden) is many times larger than Russia eg. 4x the population, 5-6x the GDP, a larger amount of military spending and also nuclear weapons as well.

In comparison, the Chinese economy is larger than the rest of Asia combined.

---
Plus the opinions of decision makers and the public can swing both ways

I think we can agree that a US-China war will be triggered over Taiwan. And that within 2 days, the electricity grid will go dark in Taiwan and will remain down because Taiwan is just too close to mainland China. Soon there will be no clean water, food and fuel on Taiwan. At that point, it is only a matter before the utter collapse of Taiwanese society. That is a powerful deterrent to taking sides. PLAOpsOSINT has a writeup of this: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1584319536245137408.html

Sinnavuuty said:

Are you sure what you claim? Look what they claimed:
BATURAJA, Indonesia — Soldiers from the U.S., Indonesia and Australia joined a live-fire drill on Friday, part of annual joint combat exercises on Sumatra island amid growing Chinese maritime activity in the Indo-Pacific region.

The expanded drills are seen by China as a threat. Chinese state media have accused the U.S. of building an Indo-Pacific alliance similar to NATO to limit China’s growing military and diplomatic influence in the region.

The U.S. Indo-Pacific commander, Adm. John C. Aquilino, said the 14 nations involved in the training are signaling their stronger ties as China grows increasingly assertive in claiming virtually the entire South China Sea and holds threatening self-ruled Taiwan.

“We’ll continue to help deliver a free and open Indo-Pacific and be ready when we need to respond to any contingency,” Aquilino said.

Indonesia and China enjoy generally positive ties, but Jakarta has expressed concern about what it sees as Chinese encroachment in its exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea.

Indonesia sees the current exercises with the U.S. as a deterrent in defense of the Natuna Islands, while for Washington, the drills are part of efforts to forge a united front against China’s military buildup in the South China Sea, Bakrie said.

“Indonesia wants to send the message that it is fully prepared for any high-intensity conflict in the South China Sea area,” she said.

Where did you get the information that this would not be China's containment?

Click to expand...

Look at it again. The US and China see these exercises as an attempt at containment. But the Indonesians deny this.
You can't use US military sources. You have to use what the Indonesians say.

Please learn some basic geopolitics before posting such big claims. The most basic reason why Indonesia and other ASEAN countries do military exercises with the US is because they want to balance Chinese influence and power in the region.

China sees these exercises as containment efforts by the US, and for ASEAN it is trying to increase their negotiating strength. The US sees these exercises as containment. ASEAN sees these exercise as normal part of International Relations trying to balance out a regional power from becoming hegemonic.

That ASEAN participates in balancing moves against China means exactly this, nothing more, nothing less. Petty basic stuff

Overbom said:

Please learn some basic geopolitics before posting such big claims. The most basic reason why Indonesia and other ASEAN countries do military exercises with the US is because they want to balance Chinese influence and power in the region.

China sees these exercises as containment efforts by the US, and for ASEAN it is trying to increase their negotiating strength. The US sees these exercises as containment. ASEAN sees these exercise as normal part of International Relations trying to balance out a regional power from becoming hegemonic.

That ASEAN participates in balancing moves against China means exactly this, nothing more, nothing less. Petty basic stuff

Click to expand...

Precisely. I can only hope that American policy makers, if not their politicians, are not so myopic, ignorant, and culturally blind as to start a war with China on the assumption that India or SEA will go through with it. They can expect Australia and maybe Japan to go along with their intervention, but if they are basing their plans off an assumption that SEA will cooporate with their hegemonic war then they are truly off their meds.

Sinnavuuty said:

I got tired of Indonesia. Everyone believes what they want.

An article from 2018 doesn't seem forced, does it?

If it's to use fonts against fonts, I have a recent and much more reliable font you posted that totally refutes this hesitation you so often claim:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The article clearly demonstrates that Japan's previous strategy is shifting to a more aggressive phase and willing to defend Taiwan in a framework of cooperation with various other actors, including the US. I am seeing just the opposite of a hesitation on the part of Japan regarding China and Taiwan.

Click to expand...

I'm a little confused. The article I linked to is from July 2022. There seems to be what Japan says in public vs what Japan is saying the private. I personally think that's a terrible strategy, but maybe they are also secretly telling China these things.

If you are Japan, what is the pro for announcing your support for US early on? If America is winning, Japan can always join in on the parade. If America is losing, then Japan should try to avoid getting involved.

I think at this point, most people are assuming that Australia and Japan will go with whatever decision America chooses. I agree with Australia, because China can't really destroy Australia. Japan has a tougher decision to make and it is a Pacifist country. You may read about Japan re-arming itself, but it really hasn't done very much.

Of course if you are China, you have to plan with the assumption that Japan will get involved and that other countries might involved also on America's side.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

I'm not as optimistic WRT this field, but that might just myself being more conservative.


Another big problem that should be mentioned would be how PLAN should counter Virginia SSNs when they are armed with hypersonic missiles in the coming future:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... which largely doesn't require them to come close to within tens of kilometers (and subsequently, ASW coverage of the PLAN) to launch their payload(?)

I have confidence that PLAN's ASW capability is sufficient within the First Island Chain, but what happens outside that chain is really concerning. Unless the PLAN does not plan to operate beyond the First Island Chain (even for a Taiwan AR scenario), then this would be something important that those in the August 1st building would have to resolve ASAP and with due diligence.

No wonder Winston Churchill proclaimed that the "U-boat peril" is what scared him the most during the entire WW2.

Click to expand...

The sub launched LRHW (Naval CPS) is indeed a problem, but it's slated for 2029 and for PLA standards that's really a long time to develop countermeasures. Zumwalt will be able to carry 12 CPS missiles. If all the Zumwalts are committed then a total of 36 missiles not including reloading, of which the first of it's class will be refitted by 2025. This trajectory is a drop in the bucket to stem the tide.

IMO more concerning is the US army LRHW (Dark Eagle) which they'll start deploying next year as part of their own "anti-navy" strategy to lock the island chains. Along with all the other LRPF stuff like unmanned HIMARS, NSM launchers and etc. If they get some these systems deployed in Taiwan soon (whether controlled by themselves or ROC) it'll be major problem.

Still, China has a major advantage in actually fielding and mass producing cost-effective hypersonic missiles. I'm actually wondering whether the PLA plans (or maybe already secretly in service) to have a TEL that can launch multiple containerized DF-17s like the Dark Eagle is intended to. Technically that should be easy at this point. It makes even more sense for the PLA since DF-17s are being manufactured in the hundreds per year.