Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

kkccoo11 said:

If China think they still have options, they are beyond stupid

Click to expand...

As per the World Bank 2023 Growth estimates, China will account for more economic growth than the combined rest-of-the-world. See below

worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2023/01/10/global-economic-prospects

It's not a question of China having options this year.
If anything, it's about the rest of the world having no option but to rely on China.

Also remember that over 80% of the global population live in countries which have not sanctioned Russia.
And these countries comprise 60% of global economic activity.

a0011 said:

Personal I feel both Koreas will sit out this conflict pending something seriously unexpected.

Click to expand...

I would agree, but with the following proviso.

If Japan joins in a war, then there will be a lot of secure rear-area bases in Eastern Japan because they are distant from the Chinese East Coast

However, Chinese Manchuria is close enough to all of Japan to launch significant numbers of missiles and aircraft.
The issue is that there is a thin strip of North Korean or Russian land to cross over.

Given that North Korea is dependent on China for 90% of its trade and for overall security, North Korea can't afford to see China lose a war.
Therefore I don't see North Korea protesting very loudly if Chinese missiles or aircraft cross over their territory.

And what is the US going to do anyway?

Start a war with North Korea, which will turn into a land war between the Chinese Army and the US Army on the Korean Peninsula? Remember that the Korean Peninsula is an extension of the mainland China landmass.

Plus North Korea is under maximum economic sanctions in any case.

---

Alternatively, I don't see the Russians complaining very much either if Chinese aircraft cross over a small strip of Russian territory. After all, these Chinese aircraft are on their way to attack US airbases in Japan.

Again, Russia is already under maximum sanctions in any case.

AndrewS said:

I would agree, but with the following proviso.

If Japan joins in a war, then there will be a lot of secure rear-area bases in Eastern Japan because they are distant from the Chinese East Coast

However, Chinese Manchuria is close enough to all of Japan to launch significant numbers of missiles and aircraft.
The issue is that there is a thin strip of North Korean or Russian land to cross over.

Given that North Korea is dependent on China for 90% of its trade and for overall security, North Korea can't afford to see China lose a war.
Therefore I don't see North Korea protesting very loudly if Chinese missiles or aircraft cross over their territory.

And what is the US going to do anyway?

Start a war with North Korea, which will turn into a land war between the Chinese Army and the US Army on the Korean Peninsula? Remember that the Korean Peninsula is an extension of the mainland China landmass.

Plus North Korea is under maximum economic sanctions in any case.

---

Alternatively, I don't see the Russians complaining very much either if Chinese aircraft cross over a small strip of Russian territory. After all, these Chinese aircraft are on their way to attack US airbases in Japan.

Again, Russia is already under maximum sanctions in any case.

Click to expand...

Why do you think in any scenario that NK would protest to begin with? Would Poland protest if USA fires missiles over them towards Russia? If Russia was the one that started throwing hands first?

NK is treaty bound to defend China if China is attacked by other governments. Not only will there be missiles from China going over NK to Japan, there will also be missiles from NK itself going towards Japan.

Biscuits said:

Why do you think in any scenario that NK would protest to begin with? Would Poland protest if USA fires missiles over them towards Russia? If Russia was the one that started throwing hands first?

NK is treaty bound to defend China if China is attacked by other governments. Not only will there be missiles from China going over NK to Japan, there will also be missiles from NK itself going towards Japan.

Click to expand...

NK can't really add that much.

So I reckon it is in China's interest to have NK neutral.

Therefore NK has to "protest" at the violation of its neutrality

AndrewS said:

NK can't really add that much.

So I reckon it is in China's interest to have NK neutral.

Therefore NK has to "protest" at the violation of its neutrality

Click to expand...

NK can do plenty as China’s ‘max’ attack dog.

If NK jumps in and is actively engaged in combat operations alongside China from the start, that guarantees SK stays out of the fight as its Korean War 2.0 otherwise. That’s infinitely preferable to actually having to fight Korean War 2.0 if SK was already engaged before NK.

NK can also happily threaten to hit targets and/or actually hit targets that are politically inconvenient for China to strike directly.

plawolf said:

NK can also happily threaten to hit targets and/or actually hit targets that are politically inconvenient for China to strike directly.

Click to expand...

Such as?

Nuclear power plants would be a big no-no.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Such as?

Nuclear power plants would be a big no-no.

Click to expand...

Depends on just how scotched earth China wants to go really. But for starters anything and everything dual use such as sea ports, airports (civilian), power (non nuclear), bridges, factories etc.

If they wanted to make a point, Emperors palace, Diet, dams, Fukushima nuclear waste water storage tanks (if they haven’t already been emptied into the pacific at that time), Yasukuni Shrine etc.

China can focus on the military targets and NK can go to town and basically trash Japan’s economy and industry to such an extent it becomes a failed state and massive burden on the US rather than an asset.

plawolf said:

Depends on just how scotched earth China wants to go really. But for starters anything and everything dual use such as sea ports, airports (civilian), power (non nuclear), bridges, factories etc.

If they wanted to make a point, Emperors palace, Diet, dams, Fukushima nuclear waste water storage tanks (if they haven’t already been emptied into the pacific at that time), Yasukuni Shrine etc.

China can focus on the military targets and NK can go to town and basically trash Japan’s economy and industry to such an extent it becomes a failed state and massive burden on the US rather than an asset.

Click to expand...

How many munitions can NK actually deliver to Japan?

Recent Taiwanese military exercise juxtaposed with the recent PLA training

Recently published essay by a retired USN Captain about the need for American Navy ships quantity rather than on placing too much emphasis on quality.

Bigger Fleets Win​

In naval warfare, a smaller fleet of superior quality ships is not a way to victory. The side with the most ships almost always wins.
By Captain Sam J. Tangredi, U.S. Navy (Retired)

Bigger Fleets Win | Proceedings - January 2023 Vol. 149/1/1,439

I’ve heard a lot of people saying recently, ‘Quantity has a quality all its own.’ And I just want to be clear: No, it doesn’t. That’s one of the dumbest damn things I’ve ever heard.”1 With respect to the quoted speaker, not only does quantity have a quality all its own, but it also almost always proves decisive in naval warfare when professional competence is equal.

Using technological advantage as an indicator of quality, historical research on 28 naval wars (or wars with significant and protracted naval combat) indicates that 25 were won by the side with the larger fleet. When fleet size was roughly equal, superior strategy and substantially better trained and motivated crews carried the day.2 Only three could be said to have been won by a smaller fleet with superior technology.3

When professional naval competence and strategic acumen were equal, the larger fleet usually won, even when the smaller fleet possessed technological advantages at the start of the conflict. A primary reason is that technological advantages were inevitably short-lived.4 In a war between equally competent technological near peers—absent a series of amazing strokes of luck—the larger fleet always won.5 (See Table 1.)

Read the rest on the link.