I do not agree with this at all. North Korea was razed in a massive aerial bombardment campaign for the time.
North Korea had to be completely rebuilt from the ground up after the war. The Korean War was also the first time you saw jet vs jet fighter combat. The Soviets and some Chinese and North Korean pilots provided air cover in the later part of the war. That is how they could push the US troops back. In fact Mao only approved the Chinese entry into the war after Stalin guaranteed to provide air cover. You seem to think there was no aerial component but this is totally and utterly wrong. Korea was also the first war which saw the large use of helicopters for air transport and medevac.
The Korean War pioneered a lot of concepts of combined arms which were later expanded upon in the Vietnam War. But yes a modern conflict would not look the same. Because it would escalate into a nuclear exchange before it came to that. So it would never get to that degree in the first place.
I see no reason why China cannot surpass the US in LHA and LHD capacity easily with current produced systems. Not that they need to. Those are necessary for a Pacific island hopping campaign but I don't see China engaging into something like that. I think the major Chinese weakness is the nuclear submarine fleet.
It is impossible to defeat the US without cutting off its hands and feet first. China would need to knock down their allies one by one first.
Unless you do a decapitation attack but that would imply MAD. Just look at the Punic Wars. Rome first did a land invasion and conquered all the Cartaginian colonies. They completely cut them off. Only after that did they engage them directly.
No way. That is simply impossible. Do you really see China having permanently deployed troops close to the US? There is just no way. That is Red Dawn levels of nonsense. I do not think either Russia or China ever expect that to happen. They only expect the US to retreat back into its own landmass.
The UK lost its colonial empire. They had to starve them out to win WW2. India is a good example of this. The UK also got itself into a massive debt to the US that they had to pay for by forcing their own people into rationing for like two decades.
I do not see Europe totally collapsing without either a massive land war or a total naval blockade for a prolonged period of time.
Contrary to some people I think the current Russian army could easily take Europe down militarily. The problem would be holding on to it afterwards. That the Soviets could hold onto Eastern Europe for as long as they did was no small miracle.
I say this because the Russians outmatch any single European army alone. Multinational armies are always shit in warfare. Just look at the Battle of France in WW2 for example.
That is one reason why I expect a Taiwanese conflict to expand into South Korea and possibly Taiwan in case the US tries to fight back militarily. Personally I think the US would try to do a blockade of China first. Since it is basically impossible to engage China militarily while they are in a position of strength. Only by destroying their technological base first can they even contemplate something like that.
You guys talk about the Iraqi war a lot. Just consider the amount of troops the US used in Kuwait vs the amount of troops they used in 2003. A lot of people claimed it was impossible. It wasn't because the Iraqi armed forces were in shambles. They had no parts and equipment for like a decade. Most weapons were imported.
Some years back I thought this would happen. But they seem to be reelling in their allies quite effectively thus far.
They will just squeeze them like the British did with India.
Right. In some ways the best time to do a Taiwan invasion would be right now while the US has its infrastructure and industry in shambles and cutting off its access to Chinese industry would do the most damage.
