Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
I'm with Manqiangrexue on this. China could communicate through back door channels that she is prepared to fire on the US mainland with Hypersonic weapons if the U.S. fires on the Chinese mainland.
Of more immediate concern, what are the chances of the US trying something if they think the KMT are going to win next years elections?
Conventional or nuclear? Conventional warheads will do hardly any damage that matters plus China doesn’t have intercontinental range hypersonic missiles.

Since when the mainland became sacred that can’t be attacked? The entire stock of TLAM and AGM-181 will do minimal damage to the Chinese industrial juggernaut considering the formidable air defense China has. If the US gets involved in the Chinese civil war, China can erase all American presence in the West Pac.
 

B.I.B.

Captain
The US can't ramp up their production overnight, because nowadays they are industrially weak, service and consumption based country and economy. The 80% of their GDP is consumption. Their industry is 20% of their GDP, but for example, China's is 40%. They are not manufacturing and export oriented nation. They don't have nearly enough millitary capacity as in the Cold War.

That is showing their whole economic model, of recent decades, for "growth", which is printing money out of thin air, debt creation, importing, and then reselling mostly Chinese goods to their citizens im Walmarts, Home Depots, etc. That's what "services" are to them.

Other than that, they have the most bullshit positions on the planet, the most lawyers per capita, bankers per capita, hedge fund managers, instagram influencers, youtubers, etc... Nothing of real value that can actually produce you something once a war-time economy starts. Even those 20% that is counted as industry is mostly general assembly relying on mostly Chinese imported parts. Meaning, they are industrial weakling.

It is nothing strange that the Russia, which has the nominal GDP size of Italy, 30 times smaller GDP than NATO, is out producing and embarrassing them so easily. Russia already entered full wartime production mode, now producing 7 times more millitary equipment, than before, where is the West?

They already did practically empty all of their and their vassals' millitary stockpiles of some specific types of weapons to give to Ukraine. First they stole Soviet origin millitary equipment from their Eastern European vassals to give to Ukraine, then they emptied Western European vassal stockpiles, but nothing seems to work. Because Russia is simply producing more.

They basically DO already keep Ukrainians afloat. The original Ukrainian millitary was already destroyed by Russia in those first few months of war. They are now fighitng against Western equipment's, instructors, ISR capabilities, and in many cases directly Western soldiers, especially the Poles.

Ukrainian economy is already destroyed, the US is giving billions of dollars each week if we divided the total amount given recently and the number of weeks. Ukraine would have folded 10 times until now if not the West. Ukrainian original economy and millitary are already destroyed, this is now Western stuff.

So, what I'm trying to say, it's not like the US did pull any punches against Russia, not even close. For example stealing Russian foreign reserves was such a crazy and self-destructive move that didn't even happen during Cold War.

It is just that you think that the US could provide them more weapons, when I say that they can't. The only thing the US could do is to provide more dangerous types of weapon systems, like fighter jets and longer range precise missiles, but guess what, they are already doing it!

As to why the US doesn't send it's own forces directly against Russian forces in Ukraine, like they prepare to send against Chinese for Taiwan, it's because Ukraine is objectively strategically irrelevant shithole which was the poorest country in Europe per capita even before the war, while Taiwan is global overlord of high end chips, the most advanced and precious technology that currently exists.

Why should they send their forces for Ukraine then? Also, even if Russia gets Ukraine, they are still stuck encompassed by NATO everywhere they turn, meanwhile if China gets Taiwan, it is free to roam Pacific. Not to mention China is a real superpower peer rival, meanwhile Russia is nowhere near that status as a peer existential threat like that. That's why they will go directly after China and not directly after Russia. Because Ukrainians are irrelevant fascist pawns while Taiwan is the real deal and the most significant territory in the world for this century.
I cant see anyhing stoping Chinese ships from sailing in the Pacific
Conventional or nuclear? Conventional warheads will do hardly any damage that matters plus China doesn’t have intercontinental range hypersonic missiles.

Since when the mainland became sacred that can’t be attacked? The entire stock of TLAM and AGM-181 will do minimal damage to the Chinese industrial juggernaut considering the formidable air defense China has. If the US gets involved in the Chinese civil war, China can erase all American presence in the West Pac.
I think they Tested a Hypersonic missile which flew around the world last year. I have heard suggestions that the US started the riots in Hk to scare the Taiwanese from voting for the KMT.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
Hmmm, why are we comparing China's air defense capability with that of Ukraine and not Russia


I'm with Manqiangrexue on this. China could communicate through back door channels that she is prepared to fire on the US mainland with Hypersonic weapons if the U.S. fires on the Chinese mainland.
Of more immediate concern, what are the chances of the US trying something if they think the KMT are going to win next years elections?
Just because China is the defender here, like Ukraine is. And also because Ukraine has less than zero penetration into Russian airspace, so theres nothing to compare to.
 

Serb

Junior Member
Registered Member
I cant see anyhing stoping Chinese ships from sailing in the Pacific

I meant it more figuratively and from the historical/psychological/geostrategic perspective.

If China takes control over Taiwan, the First Island Chain concept is officially done.

The US would not be able to pretend anymore that they can "contain" China geostrategically.

Let's say the US still has Japan, , and the Philippines, under control, but it's still not the same.

The US would lose all of its hegemonic image in the world, better said, China is not "contained" anymore.

That will make it so the dollar starts falling in value even more.

Currently, one of the biggest reasons the world uses dollars is the perceived US global military hegemony.

But if their peer competitor reclaims Taiwan, it would signal all around the world as a major loss for the US.




However, from the military perspective too, if China were to reclaim Taiwan it would also increase its Pacific power projection capabilities tremendously by making the island its launchpad.

Then China would establish military bases, airfields, and naval facilities on the island, which would allow it to project power and influence more effectively onto the Pacific.

That could enable China to extend its A2/AD capabilities further into the Pacific, potentially limiting the ability of the US and its minions to operate freely in the region.

Nearly 50% of the world's container ships pass through the Taiwan Strait each year. If China were to truly reclaim Taiwan, and make it effectively its "internal waters", it is over for the US. They are an import-based economy and China would hold them by their balls forever.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I worry in the conflict between China and the US over Taiwan, the US use the opportunity to try and bomb/destroy the living bejeezus "out of China's infrastructure as they did in Iraq. The West is trying its best to avoid attacking Russia proper in this conflict which won't be the case in a war against China where the aim is to destroy China's industrial production. It does not appear to me That China can retaliate in a similar fashion.

The US would desperately want to do just that, and this would actually be a huge part of the reason why many in the US is currently pushing for war - so they can roll back China’s economic and technological development by a few years or ideally decades to buy themselves more breathing time.

However, the key issue is just how does the US plan on achieving that kind of damage against China?

In Iraq, it had total air and naval dominance, and safe haven air bases to operate from within good operating range of targets.

In the pacific, it’s air bases in the first island chain cannot expect to survive the opening salvos. Bases in mainland Japan and SK might be spared initially, but will also get taken out if they are used to try to attack China. The USN carriers will need to stay well back else they run the serious risk of eating massed AShBMs. So the only reliable means to attack would be cruise missiles.

The USN can use its SSGNs and later model Virginias, but those have limited payloads and long reload cycles, since they cannot rearm in SK or Japan as doing so will be serving them up on a platter for the PLA to hit them peer-side. The USN can also use its surface fleet VLS for cruise missiles, but again, it will be a long replay cycle to go back to Pearl and come back. In addition, every cell used for tomahawks is one cell less for SAMs.

The USAF can also use its B52s to spam cruise missiles from Pearl, but they would risk getting ambushed by J20s doing that.

But even assuming none of the launch platforms gets intercept, the maximum daily peak launch capacity of both the USAF and USN would be within the intercept capacity of the PLAN and PLAAF as well as PLA IADS.

Cruise missiles work best when the enemy do not have air cover. If the target has AWACS and massed fighter air cover, cruise missiles are very easy to intercept, especially over water.

This is probably the chief consideration for China working on putting AAMs on conventional UCAVs, so they can intercept cruise missiles and not need to overly burden manned fighters.

So, with no real ability to overwhelm Chinese defences, the key deciding factor will be attrition and who has more missiles, and this is why all the think thanks are warning the US will run out of missiles weeks into a war with China.
 

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
Conventional or nuclear? Conventional warheads will do hardly any damage that matters plus China doesn’t have intercontinental range hypersonic missiles.

Since when the mainland became sacred that can’t be attacked? The entire stock of TLAM and AGM-181 will do minimal damage to the Chinese industrial juggernaut considering the formidable air defense China has. If the US gets involved in the Chinese civil war, China can erase all American presence in the West Pac.
It's not about holding the mainland as sacred. It's about conventional deterrence to ensure war does not break out to begin with. Ensuring that they know that hitting Shanghai means hitting Manhattan. That hitting Beijing means hitting DC. That hitting Shenzhen means hitting Silicon Valley. There needs to be like-for-like counterattack. Otherwise, they will not be properly deterred. They would happily lose a dozen strategic bombers and VLO fighters in exchange for knocking out an important Chinese city.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
It's not about holding the mainland as sacred. It's about conventional deterrence to ensure war does not break out to begin with. Ensuring that they know that hitting Shanghai means hitting Manhattan. That hitting Beijing means hitting DC. That hitting Shenzhen means hitting Silicon Valley. There needs to be like-for-like counterattack. Otherwise, they will not be properly deterred. They would happily lose a dozen strategic bombers and VLO fighters in exchange for knocking out an important Chinese city.
It's not realistic due to tyranny of distance to hit major US cities at the start of conflict. The further you ferry something, the more it will cost, the less efficient it will be.

Even cities like Kiev are not "knocked out" despite being so close to the front lines and by Chinese standards basically undefended air wise.

If US wants to sacrifice their entire VLO bomber arsenal + unknown dozens of other bombers and fighters just to incur a temporary blackout in 1 major coastal city, even if China might lose civilians, that trade is massively beneficial to China.

China needs to first physically remove US presence in Asia before it eyes attacks on US mainland. Basically, it will follow the same plan as US had during ww2 against Japan, island hop until China is right next to US. Until then, China might do symbolic raids on US east coast, but it would be symbolic for a reason.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
It's not about holding the mainland as sacred. It's about conventional deterrence to ensure war does not break out to begin with. Ensuring that they know that hitting Shanghai means hitting Manhattan (New York). That hitting Beijing means hitting DC. That hitting Shenzhen means hitting Silicon Valley. There needs to be like-for-like counterattack. Otherwise, they will not be properly deterred. They would happily lose a dozen strategic bombers and VLO fighters in exchange for knocking out an important Chinese city.
There is only one major problem.

How?

Other than ICBMs and SLBMs, China has no means of conducting strategic conventional bombing against targets located anywhere in CONUS.

(Alaska is not considered part of CONUS in this discussion)

Even with the newer H-6 variants (K, J, N) armed with the longest-ranged cruise missiles in the PLA arsenal (KD-20, CJ-100) - Unless Moscow is willing to grant Beijing access to their airbases in Siberia and the Russian Far East for these H-6s to refuel en route to strike CONUS and not getting hit by the US-led NATO in retaliation - There is simply no way for China to strike CONUS within the Earth's atmosphere.

On the other hand, firing DF-31AG, DF-41, DF-5, JL-2 and JL-3 at CONUS - Even with those missiles carrying only conventional warheads - Will most likely invite a nuclear first strike by the US against China.

Even if Beijing promised to the world that those ICBMs and SLBMs won't be nuclear-tipped, with all those rabid Sinophobic warmongering living fossils controlling DC, I wouldn't bet on any of them to take even one word from Beijing into consideration.
 
Last edited:

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Conventional or nuclear? Conventional warheads will do hardly any damage that matters plus China doesn’t have intercontinental range hypersonic missiles.
I'm of the understanding that Chinese hypersonic nuclear missiles can hit the US and they cannot be intercepted.
Since when the mainland became sacred that can’t be attacked?
Since the US wants to hold its land sacred turning it into a war within Asia. That is the best scenario for America and that's a scenario that China cannot allow to happen. If Chinese cities are hit, so will American cities be. That is the deterrence to America going to war with China.
The entire stock of TLAM and AGM-181 will do minimal damage to the Chinese industrial juggernaut considering the formidable air defense China has. If the US gets involved in the Chinese civil war, China can erase all American presence in the West Pac.
It's the principle that matters. Americans cannot be safe in their cities if Chinese people are not. If they hit a Chinese city, business as usual will not continue in China, and as such, American cities and major institutions must also be set ablaze so that business as usual cannot continue in the US. Even if they ultimately cannot stop China from taking over Taiwan, they cannot even be allowed to get a good deal out of it, striking China while remaining safe. If we need to go there, we will, but being forthright in this is the best way to prevent going there at all.
There is only one major problem.

How?

Other than ICBMs and SLBMs, China has no means of conducting strategic conventional bombings against targets located anywhere in CONUS.

Even with the newer H-6 variants (K, J, N) and long-range cruise missiles in the PLA arsenal (CJ-100, KD-20) - Unless Russia is willing to grant access to their airbases in Siberia and the Russian Far East for these H-6s to refuel AND not getting targetted by NATO in retaliation - There is no way for China to strike CONUS within the atmosphere.

On the other hand, firing DF-31AG, DF-41, DF-5, JL-2 and JL-3 at CONUS - Even if those missiles carrying only conventional warheads - Will most likely invite a nuclear first strike by the US against China simply because the US don't want to gamble.

Even if Beijing promised to the world that those ICBMs and SLBMs won't be nuclear-tipped, with all those rabid Sinophobic warmongering living fossils populating DC, I wouldn't bet on any of them to take even one word from Beijing into consideration.
Going to nuclear war is how. Americans would love for us to come to the conclusion, "Well, since we can only use nuclear missiles to hit the US and we don't want to escalate to nuclear Armageddon, guess that means we need to take conventional hits from America and not retaliate, leaving American cities untouched." No. Whatever conclusions your enemy wants you to come to are the conclusions to reject. Whatever conclusions he fears you will come to are the ones you must embrace. Don't allow them to draw you into the unfair situation that since they can hit your cities conventionally and you cannot hit theirs conventionally, that that means your cities can be attacked and theirs can't. Force them into the unfair scenario that since Chinese bases are in China and American bases are in Asia, that means that you can hit their bases and they cannot hit yours.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top