A spoiled brat crying wolf. When push comes to shafe, distance counts for obvioius reasons.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
59 Tomahawks could only suppress a Syrian airbase for a few hours. A naval shipyard is far harder to attack effectively than an airbase due to size and hardening.
If they could win a decisive battle then they wouldn't need to blockade. Blockading is an admission they can't win a decisive battle without crippling loss. For example Germany was blockaded by Britain because Royal Navy knew they couldn't win against the Kriegsmarine in the Baltic without getting sunk wholesale. So which is it, can they win or not? BTW the blockade on Germany was ineffective despite Germany producing 0 oil and having 0 natural resources.
The US has certainly let it's ship-building capacity go into the toilet but, realistically, I think everybody knows it wouldn't be a long war. These days it's "come as you are".
Not really. Knock down the cranes and let water into the dry docks. And nobody cares what a blockade is an "admission" of. It works.
solarz
Brigadier
I think you have a seriously outdated view of Chinese military capabilities. All your analyses consists of what the US can do to China, while ignoring any consideration of Chinese countermeasures.
You're essentially playing chess against yourself.
Does it? Nazi Germany had far less resources than China and the blockade did essentially nothing against them.
The dry docke and cranes can be hit that easily? Where's the historical precedence?
Btw many drydocks are above the waterline. How to let water in without a pump???
But that is basically the crux of the discussion here (playing chess against yourself).
It’s not really the capability that’s the issue. It’s really whether the scenario presented is truly reflecting reality. This is what people are having the most trouble with.
One of the assumptions is that US will just reroute global forces after pacific forces are annihilated. Meanwhile China would not have global reserves to draw from. At the same time, the diminished PLA capability will open them to direct attacks on the mainland.
If we assume that today’s US Global forces are more capable than today’s PLA (not the PLA in 5 or 10 years), then from a military perspective this is all true.
We know this isn’t realistic for a number of reasons, chiefly amongst them would be economics. If a war broke out Tesla and Apple would basically become worthless overnight which would destroy the stock market, take down a lot of pension funds, then subsequently drive down real estate prices in all major cities.
Taiwan would literally not be worth it. Part of America’s global power is wealth, so shotgunning yourself in the face in a way that would put Kurt Cobain to shame would be stupid to put it simply.
Second, such a wasteful sacrifice of American military assets would basically leave its ability as world police in tatters and who knows what that means for places like the Middle East.
Also we have history to draw from as Thatcher did hilariously tried to assert British sovereignty over HK like Falklands, but we know that ended with her literally falling flat on her face.
However, this is the chess game that has been set up in this part of the thread, so it’s what we are playing
solarz
Brigadier
When the Pentagon loses four out of five war games on this exact scenario and the only one win is by using not yet existent technology, but one still thinks the PLA will lose any capability to project force over Taiwan, is problematic at best.
How is it even a game when the outcome is a forgone conclusion?
I understand, perfectly, arguing against one’s own preferences and expectations.
However, the point of research modeling is to find out what will probably occur, not to confirm predetermined outcomes.
Now, I usually don’t resort to these kinds of criticisms, however, I must say that any scenario that allows for US/allied attacks upon the Chinese mainland without China using all means of retaliation upon the US/allied mainlands, short of nuclear escalation, are not only asinine, but also mastubative. Dungeons and Dragons is an adolescent’s game!
But, play on!