In the words of the Chinese, it is the difference between "道" and "术". If it refers to war alone, it is the difference between "strategy" and "tactics".
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
The bandwidth of troops are severely limited by tunnel width also, once discovered Taiwan can collapse the entrance using artillery and it will basically undo decades of work and tens of billions in investment. If you have spend that money on procurement you probably could've afforded another carrier strike group or two.
Can the US stomach the potential losses in a fight with China?
who has the capability to bomb even a small fraction of Chinese civilians without losing most of their air force?
who has the capability to invade China with ground troops without losing a few million in even the best case scenario?
Sorry, but Taiwan is not a country.
You perfectly illustratate my point of how many if not most Americans, especially American nationalists, learned nothing from Ukraine.
"China will surrender in 3 days if US soldiers just roll into Taipei". "Chinese military is untested and there won't be any defenders when we move in".
Seems like a good recipe to wipe out invader scum en masse, I hope more US leaders take this position.
As a former MMA fighter, I tell you the boxer with a fight record and experience will win, Not really a good analogy for war.
In this scenario, both sides more or less have 0 experience. Neither US nor China fought an equal power war since Korea.
Whoever gets cocky would have a signficant disadvantage. Service record and experience wise, both sides can only rely on simulations and training.
The significant tyranny of distance absolutely also doesn't help US, because not only are they untested, but they'll also need to overcome bottlenecked logistics, unfamiliar territory and attacking while having local firepower disadvantage.
If I gave the chances (to acquire major territory) of Russia's Donbass operation as a 7/10, I would give US' Taiwan operation a 1/10. Sure, one can say it is biased because I don't support American expansionism, but I'm evaluating realistically based on the fact that Ukraine is a lot smaller than Russia (in every major metric) whereas US is smaller than China in most metrics except starting military size. The geography also favors China a lot more.
Whoever gets cocky would have a signficant disadvantage. Service record and experience wise, both sides can only rely on simulations and training.
The significant tyranny of distance absolutely also doesn't help US, because not only are they untested, but they'll also need to overcome bottlenecked logistics, unfamiliar territory and attacking while having local firepower disadvantage.
If I gave the chances (to acquire major territory) of Russia's Donbass operation as a 7/10, I would give US' Taiwan operation a 1/10. Sure, one can say it is biased because I don't support American expansionism, but I'm evaluating realistically based on the fact that Ukraine is a lot smaller than Russia (in every major metric) whereas US is smaller than China in most metrics except starting military size. The geography also favors China a lot more.
I doubt it, especially if the fight record is only vs teens/kids.
National strength cannot be anthropomorphic, and your experience has no reference value, brother.
If the country has to be anthropomorphic, then as someone who has experience caring for a patient suffering from chronic diseases, I think the future of the United States is also very bad.
Last edited: