PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

manqiangrexue · 2025-07-23T01:59:52-0400

PLAwatcher12 said:
lol, how did Irans missiles best Isreal and turn the tide, they still have significant military assets and aren’t stopping anytime soon.

Iran would have been destroyed if it were not for its missiles but because of them, Israel could not handle it anymore and had to call for help from the US.

PLAwatcher12 said:
Do you seriously think the US has zero logistical capability during war?

What does that mean? I have logistical ability when I do my errands. What they can muster under constant Chinese missile bombardment is the question. And if the answer is anything, how does that anything face off against China's military?

PLAwatcher12 said:
All AD won’t work well against saturated attacks, including Chinas let’s not like US AD doesn’t matter but Chinas does.

China can do saturation with supersonic and hypersonic missiles fired from bases. The US can fire a few mostly subsonic missiles with what they can sneak through after all their bases are inoperable. There is no saturation.

PLAwatcher12 said:
I absolutely presented one you just disagree because you don’t want to imagine a scenario where China loses because to you China in unbeatable and can’t lose a war against Taiwan and the US.

No, you presented one that was easily rebutted and you just repeated over and over again how many bases the US has.

PLAwatcher12 said:
1. How do you suppose China can buildup for war with no one noticing, do you actually think the US would have zero clue China would be doing a war buildup?

We're doing one now. They can't do shit about it because we build up faster than anyone.

PLAwatcher12 said:
2. So your plan is preemptive strike Japanese bases? You are aware they would raw in both the US and the Japanese army correct? It would be an incredibly dangerous idea.

No, it's to strike them the instant they are used. What meager amount gets off the ground will not make a difference.

PLAwatcher12 said:
3. You think China won’t be fighting the US navy and airforce too or US missiles?

Navy yes, but without larger ships like carriers basically no air force. US missiles are few and mostly subsonic because those bases are toast. So America's short arm navy will be out there with basically no support against China's navy, air force, rocket force, land bases, everything. They won't stay there and put themselves in that situation.

PLAwatcher12 said:
4. Nice deflection from the fact but any serious person knows Japanese and Philippines bases matter.

The deflection is all yours and every serious person here knows that bases on fire don't matter.

PLAwatcher12 said:
5. why exactly do you think Asian bases won’t matter in a war?

I'm sorry, can you not read? They will be under constant missile bombardment. How many times have you missed this?

PLAwatcher12 said:
And subsonic missiles are still a threat don’t act like they’re not.

So are rocks being thrown LOL They're a miniscule threat compared to supersonic and hypersonic missiles.

PLAwatcher12 said:
6. The same guy, lol

What is this a response to? Why are you numbering your shit when you should just be inserting it under the text to which you are replying?

PLAwatcher12 said:
7. Show me where hegseth and Trump said the US stands no chance against China over Taiwan

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“Taiwan is like two feet from China,” Trump was quoted as saying to an unnamed Republican senator in 2019, according to the book by Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin. “We are eight thousand miles away. If they invade, there isn’t a fucking thing we can do about it.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Before becoming defence secretary in January 2025, 44-year-old Hegseth was a TV host on Fox News. As a guest last November on a podcast by former Navy SEAL Shawn Ryan, he warned that China is building a military force “specifically dedicated to defeating the United States of America”; that the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) hypersonic missiles could sink all of America’s aircraft carriers “within the first minutes of a potential conflict”; and that the US lost “every time” in all of the Pentagon’s simulated war games against China."

PLAwatcher12 said:
that wasn’t propaganda meant for more military support.

So you want evidence they said it so you can pretend it's propaganda and not true? LOL

PLAwatcher12 said:
8. How exactly is what I said wrong, the number of ships largely doesn’t matter, what matters is how capable they are and what types.

It's wrong as shit. Quantity has a quality all on its own. Heard of that? What happened when a few Me-262 and Tigers went up against many P-51s and Sherman tanks?

PLAwatcher12 said:
9. You think the US couldn’t bring bombers to Guam or ships to Guam or F-35, F-22 to Japan, why do you think that?

You don't know that China has designed a specific hypersonic missile called the Guam Killer?

PLAwatcher12 said:
10. Designed to defeat doesn’t mean it will work that way

That's factored into the unexpected things that would give America a non-zero chance but if someone's training to kill you and you're training to kill kids, the chances look very bad for you indeed.

PLAwatcher12 said:
and are you trying to say Japan and Philippines aren’t a threat in any war?

Japan a little but they will be easily defeated. The Philippines are a non-issue. Missiles will take out both.

PLAwatcher12 said:
11. You need to destroy quite a bit to make an airbase largely useless.

That's why China's so good at producing things, eh?

PLAwatcher12 said:
12. Both are absolutely meant to handle subsonic missiles

We fire supersonic and hypersonic

PLAwatcher12 said:
and the same threats apply to China, why do you ignore that?

Because American missiles are few and mostly subsonic.

PLAwatcher12 said:
1. The US has plenty of forward deploy bases and don’t need months to buildup they would need days.

And they'd lose it all in minutes from missile strikes

PLAwatcher12 said:
2. Yes that is true but moving supplies over 100 miles when you still have the US is difficult you would need to cripple the US warfighting capability first if the US gets involved.

No, just secure air dominance over the Taiwan Strait. It's extremely easy compared to the vast expanses of ocean on the other side that the US has to get across.

PLAwatcher12 said:
yes, distance does matter but not as much as some people think

No, way more than you think

PLAwatcher12 said:
especially for modern aircraft and the US would have access to 5th generation aircraft too

With no bases and no carriers, they won't even get to the fight.

PLAwatcher12 said:
and most of what China would use in a Taiwan war won’t be J-20 or the J-35. it will be 4th generation ones they mainly rely on like the J-10C and J-16.

That's because it wouldn't even take a 5th gen when Taiwan's air defenses are down in under an hour.

PLAwatcher12 said:
The US has forward deploy bases, and what makes you certain the US would be unwilling to commit key assets to them with war is imminent?

Because the risk and embarrassment of losing all your carriers in 20 minutes is too grave.

PLAwatcher12 said:
What American warships aren’t meant to fight against another naval power and while Chinese warships might be newer, US ones are still deadly and capable.

Those 2 words mean nothing by themselves. A man with a machete is deadly and capable. The USN cannot fight with all its support destroyed or pushed back by China's area denial missiles and with China's military arms all working in a network with China's land bases.

PLAwatcher12 said:
You did state an opinion as we all are here, your post isn’t a fact and mine isn’t ether so it’s an opinion.

Not all opinions are equal. We say a bear would kill a mouse. You say the opposite. It's not all the same, unfortunately.

PLAwatcher12 said:
How exactly did Israel lose and how exactly did Iran win? Iran suffered enormous losses to their military scientists and show me where Isreal asked for the ceasefire? And yes Isreal economy was damaged but they still have a capable military and Iran dug deep into their stocks they used more than just old missiles. And missiles hitting Israel and AD being strained doesn’t mean Iran war, missiles and drones hit Iran too with close to zero being stopped. But that’s enough on this topic, it isn’t relevant to this topic so we will need to agree to disagree

Israel's a little bitch. It started a war against Iran, ended up crying about all its cities under constant Iranian missile siege, then called the US for help, all because Mossad absolutely failed to gauge Iranian missile capabilities.

RobertC · 2025-07-23T02:01:10-0400

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

provides informative background and evaluations relevant to a Taiwan contingency.

The Salvo Threat from China

China has steadfastly built the capacity to influence air and sea control over First Island
Chain nations. China has done this primarily by developing and deploying air-, land- and
sea-based ballistic and cruise missiles with new threats emerging (e.g., hypersonic missiles,
Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs), UAS). China’s existing mobile offensive missiles have the
range and the numbers to conduct ballistic and cruise missile attacks against all or part of
the sovereign territories of the First Island Chain nations.

The Second Island Chain is anchored by the U.S. territory of Guam, which lies approximately 3,000 km east of China. Guam is home to Naval Base Guam and Andersen Air Force
Base (AAFB). Because of Guam’s strategic importance, it could be a lucrative target for air
and missile attacks in the event of hostilities between the United States and China. A future
Chinese attack on Guam could include cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, hypervelocity glide
vehicles (HGVs), and UAS launched on widely varying trajectories from different azimuths
around Guam.

Recommendations for Future Regional Salvo Defenses

DoD and Congress should support the development of operating concepts and a new generation of cost-effective active and passive defenses and attack operations capabilities that
could help protect the U.S. military’s forward bases, ports, and pre-positioned sites against
salvo attacks and complex salvo attacks. As recommended by previous CSBA assessments,
the first step toward achieving this objective is to frame the challenge as a salvo competition
between adversaries that can conduct attacks with hundreds and possibly thousands of
guided weapons instead of just a small number of ballistic missiles.

The CSBA authors agree with Capt Hughes and Capt Tangredi the likely Taiwan contingency will be guided weapons (primarily missiles at this time) Salvo Competition in which the Salvo Equations are relevant. In essence, quantity outweighs technology, especially if you strike first.

CRS Report R47589

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

provides useful background and specifics.

FriedRiceNSpice · 2025-07-23T02:13:33-0400

PLAwatcher12 said:
1. You are assuming the US wouldn’t be able to pre-position forces in the event of armed reunification, unless it was disguised as a routine drill turned into a surprise attack, the US would certainly be able to tell and pre position forces and the US 7th fleet can send ships in a matter of hours since it’s stationed in Japan already and they can send bombers from US mainland in a day to Guam and than into the theater.

US can preposition forces, but it can't preposition supplies, materials, and munitions that it doesn't even have the industrial capacity to produce to sustain a prolonged conflict.

PLAwatcher12 said:
2. Yes, that’s true but China would face the same, if not greater risk trying to move supplies 100 miles across the Taiwan Strait during war and also under fire, this isn’t something the US would only face, and this isn’t ww2, logistic lines are dispersed they aren’t exactly easy to cripple.

First off, moving supplies across the fuckin Pacific is not equivalent to moving supplies across the Taiwan Strait. You need a far greater number of ships to supply the the bulk of the US military across the Pacific than to supply an amphibious assault across the Taiwan strait. In both cases, ships will be lost. When one side has 50% of the world's shipbuilding capacity and the other side has 0.2% - which side do you think is going to run into difficulty replacing ships?

PLAwatcher12 said:
3. Okinawa is the closest major base, but the US also has other major bases within the Indo-Pacific and range alone doesn’t decide combat effectiveness but how the forces are positioned, what matters isnt the distance but Guam, Philippines and Japan are all important factors in any war that involves the US.

Fighters do not have unlimited range. The range of the F35 is 1200km. From bases other than Okinawa, F35s will require aerial refueling. This will greatly limit sortie rates, time on station, and increase the logistical footprint for sustaining sorties.

PLAwatcher12 said:
4. To actually hamper any US base you would need muptile volleys, AD isn’t perfect some will get through but you need more than a few to destroy an base and do you think Chinas can handle US missiles? What matters is can they still project force if not how long can they project force again?

When both sides are engaging in missile spam, the side that can produce more missiles will win. China can simply produce far more offensive as well as defensive missiles than the US. China also doesn't have the problem of needing to ship its missiles across the Pacific on ships that it cant build. In terms of air defense missiles, both sides are more or less at parity in terms of capabilities: but China has a far wider assortment of offensive missiles. US hypersonic weapons are still in R&D and as such the US today is reliant solely on subsonic cruise missiles, which are among the easiest of threats for modern AD to intercept. China has both subsonic and supersonic cruise missiles, as well as HGVs and MARVed MRBMs. Even Iran's much simpler MARVed missiles were able to penetrate Israeli AD with impunity.

PLAwatcher12 said:
yes, distance does matter but not as much as some people think especially for modern aircraft and the US would have access to 5th generation aircraft too and most of what China would use in a Taiwan war won’t be J-20 or the J-35. it will be 4th generation ones they mainly rely on like the J-10C and J-16.

What American warships aren’t meant to fight against another naval power and while Chinese warships might be newer, US ones are still deadly and capable.

Distance matters a huge deal. Having bases closer to the theater of operations essentially multiplies the number of planes you have relative to the enemy. Due to interior lines and having bases much closer to the actual area of operations, PLAAF will be able to enjoy local numerical superiority in most actual engagements. The US is further hampered by also having the slower, shorter ranged 5th generation fighter. Due to distance, PLAAF's J-10Cs and J-16s will actually matter, especially the J-16Ds, while the USAF will not be able to make use of its F-16s at all (and lacks a sufficient number of longer range, more capable modernized F-15s. Though numbers matter much less than you think even the absolute numbers are not as lopsided as you believe. China has 450+ twin engine heavy 5th generation fighters against the US's 600 single engine medium 5th generation fighters, and China is going to be producing more 5th generation fighters than the US from now until the introduction of 6th generation fighters.

When it comes to ships, what he meant was that USN doctrine primarily relies on carrier aviation to deal with enemy naval assets. US destroyers are primarily equipped for air and missile defense and are not equipped with credible anti-ship weaponry. This is a problem when those carriers cannot operate too close to the Chinese mainland, due to hypersonic antiship missiles.

Each and every point you bring up is only relevant for a very short conflict. The PLA is not just going to give up if its unable to take Taiwan in the first few months. It will be prolonged war until Taiwan surrenders. My prediction is the Taiwanese are not going to be able to stomach more than half a year of total naval blockade and surrender anyways. They are a soft and weak people corrupted by Japanese and American culture.

PLAwatcher12 · 2025-07-23T02:18:26-0400

manqiangrexue said:
Iran would have been destroyed if it were not for its missiles but because of them, Israel could not handle it anymore and had to call for help from the US.

What does that mean? I have logistical ability when I do my errands. What they can muster under constant Chinese missile bombardment is the question. And if the answer is anything, how does that anything face off against China's military?

China can do saturation with supersonic and hypersonic missiles fired from bases. The US can fire a few mostly subsonic missiles with what they can sneak through after all their bases are inoperable. There is no saturation.

No, you presented one that was easily rebutted and you just repeated over and over again how many bases the US has.

We're doing one now. They can't do shit about it because we build up faster than anyone.

No, it's to strike them the instant they are used. What meager amount gets off the ground will not make a difference.

Navy yes, but without larger ships like carriers basically no air force. US missiles are few and mostly subsonic because those bases are toast. So America's short arm navy will be out there with basically no support against China's navy, air force, rocket force, land bases, everything. They won't stay there and put themselves in that situation.

The deflection is all yours and every serious person here knows that bases on fire don't matter.

I'm sorry, can you not read? They will be under constant missile bombardment. How many times have you missed this?

So are rocks being thrown LOL They're a miniscule threat compared to supersonic and hypersonic missiles.

What is this a response to? Why are you numbering your shit when you should just be inserting it under the text to which you are replying?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
“Taiwan is like two feet from China,” Trump was quoted as saying to an unnamed Republican senator in 2019, according to the book by Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin. “We are eight thousand miles away. If they invade, there isn’t a fucking thing we can do about it.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"Before becoming defence secretary in January 2025, 44-year-old Hegseth was a TV host on Fox News. As a guest last November on a podcast by former Navy SEAL Shawn Ryan, he warned that China is building a military force “specifically dedicated to defeating the United States of America”; that the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) hypersonic missiles could sink all of America’s aircraft carriers “within the first minutes of a potential conflict”; and that the US lost “every time” in all of the Pentagon’s simulated war games against China."

So you want evidence they said it so you can pretend it's propaganda and not true? LOL

It's wrong as shit. Quantity has a quality all on its own. Heard of that? What happened when a few Me-262 and Tigers went up against many P-51s and Sherman tanks?

You don't know that China has designed a specific hypersonic missile called the Guam Killer?

That's factored into the unexpected things that would give America a non-zero chance but if someone's training to kill you and you're training to kill kids, the chances look very bad for you indeed.

Japan a little but they will be easily defeated. The Philippines are a non-issue. Missiles will take out both.

That's why China's so good at producing things, eh?

We fire supersonic and hypersonic

Because American missiles are few and mostly subsonic.

And they'd lose it all in minutes from missile strikes

No, just secure air dominance over the Taiwan Strait. It's extremely easy compared to the vast expanses of ocean on the other side that the US has to get across.

No, way more than you think

With no bases and no carriers, they won't even get to the fight.

That's because it wouldn't even take a 5th gen when Taiwan's air defenses are down in under an hour.

Because the risk and embarrassment of losing all your carriers in 20 minutes is too grave.

Those 2 words mean nothing by themselves. A man with a machete is deadly and capable. The USN cannot fight with all its support destroyed or pushed back by China's area denial missiles and with China's military arms all working in a network with China's land bases.

Not all opinions are equal. We say a bear would kill a mouse. You say the opposite. It's not all the same, unfortunately.

Israel's a little bitch. It started a war against Iran, ended up crying about all its cities under constant Iranian missile siege, then called the US for help, all because Mossad absolutely failed to gauge Iranian missile capabilities.

You literally said all BS, you really overestimate China and underestimate the US, just because people agree with you doesn’t make you right and just because hegseth said we would lose all carriers in 20 minute and lost all simulated war games against China doesn’t mean what he said is true and just because you say something doesn’t make it not propaganda and why do you think US missiles are few or China can destroy US bases and air bases in minutes and saying Japan isn’t really a threat is a huge underestimate, and US has ballistic missiles and the PAC-3 can shoot down hypersonic and supersonic missiles why do you think it can only shoot down subsonic. You severely underestimate the US, I gave you my reasons you just don’t like them.

RobertC · 2025-07-23T02:26:52-0400

Blitzo said:
It boils down to equivalents of:
"Logistics favours China!"
"Nuh-uh, logistics favours America!"

I'm amused that one of Capt Hughes weapon system analyses was published by Naval Research Logistics Journal

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A major logistics issue for VLS missiles is reload times, locations and mechanisms. If Pt Hueneme has made any progress beyond their reload feasibility demonstration last year, it doesn't seem to have appeared in the literature or budget. That leaves the current shoot-and-scoot model for reload operations. Which returns us to Capt Hughes and Capt Tangredi

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from another direction.

manqiangrexue · 2025-07-23T02:30:07-0400

PLAwatcher12 said:
You literally said all BS,

LMFAO, missiles destroying military bases is BS? That's one of the most basic and common events in a conflict. Sorry you got ragdolled and can't handle it anymore. To your credit, you at least tried point-to-point; you just couldn't keep up like a donkey in a horse race.

PLAwatcher12 said:
you really overestimate China and underestimate the US,

No, I've given you all facts, including the 2 interviews you wanted from key figures. You just don't want to believe it so you can only repeat yourself.

PLAwatcher12 said:
just because people agree with you doesn’t make you right

No one agreeing with you certainly doesn't make you right, does it?

PLAwatcher12 said:
and just because hegseth said we would lose all carriers in 20 minute and lost all simulated war games against China doesn’t mean what he said is true

So basically everyone, including America's president and defense secretary can be ignored but your "analysis" can't? LMFAO

PLAwatcher12 said:
and just because you say something doesn’t make it not propaganda

Trump said it behind closed doors, never meant to be recounted. Hegseth said it in a podcast. It's not even to congress while lobbying or anything.

PLAwatcher12 said:
and why do you think US missiles are few

Because they are launched by individual platforms, not bases, for like the 6th time...

PLAwatcher12 said:
or China can destroy US bases and air bases in minutes

Because that's what China's missiles do and that's what missiles do in general. India would have been ragdolled by Pakistan if not for missiles and Iran would have been taken apart by Israel if not for its missiles but you still don't see their importance.

PLAwatcher12 said:
and saying Japan isn’t really a threat is a huge underestimate,

For the same reason that all US bases are barely any threat due to Chinese missiles

PLAwatcher12 said:
and US has ballistic missiles and the PAC-3 can shoot down hypersonic and supersonic missiles why do you think it can only shoot down subsonic.

Supersonic, they have a poor chance, especially if saturated. Hypersonic, it's basically swinging in the dark. Even when Iran turned up the heat, US interceptors in Israel were basically no longer working.

PLAwatcher12 said:
You severely underestimate the US, I gave you my reasons you just don’t like them.

No, I rebutted all your reasons and so did everyone else. I just did it again. And then American's president and defense told you why you're wrong too. You just don't want to accept them so you dismissed their words as propaganda. And your "reasons" are just repeating defeated points.

PLAwatcher12 · 2025-07-23T02:59:57-0400

manqiangrexue said:
LMFAO, missiles destroying military bases is BS? That's one of the most basic and common events in a conflict. Sorry you got ragdolled and can't handle it anymore. To your credit, you at least tried point-to-point; you just couldn't keep up like a donkey in a horse race.

No, I've given you all facts, including the 2 interviews you wanted from key figures. You just don't want to believe it so you can only repeat yourself.

No one agreeing with you certainly doesn't make you right, does it?

So basically everyone, including America's president and defense secretary can be ignored but your "analysis" can't? LMFAO

Trump said it behind closed doors, never meant to be recounted. Hegseth said it in a podcast. It's not even to congress while lobbying or anything.

Because they are launched by individual platforms, not bases, for like the 6th time...

Because that's what China's missiles do and that's what missiles do in general. India would have been ragdolled by Pakistan if not for missiles and Iran would have been taken apart by Israel if not for its missiles but you still don't see their importance.

For the same reason that all US bases are barely any threat due to Chinese missiles

Supersonic, they have a poor chance, especially if saturated. Hypersonic, it's basically swinging in the dark. Even when Iran turned up the heat, US interceptors in Israel were basically no longer working.

No, I rebutted all your reasons and so did everyone else. I just did it again. And then American's president and defense told you why you're wrong too. You just don't want to accept them so you dismissed their words as propaganda. And your "reasons" are just repeating defeated points.

Im done here, you won’t listen to anyone that doesn’t agree with you and you always resort to insults like you have in every conversation with me, you are an grown adult for crying out loud, insults don’t make you look cool, I said my points what btw you didn’t rebute other than saying but missiles, the US has thousands of missiles btw and missiles can damage Chinese bases too but you don’t want to hear that, and btw I’m not contuining because it’s a waste of my time not because I can’t continue, and one more thing just because people agree with you doesn’t make me wrong or you right.

Im done here it’s a waste of my time, I hope you have a good day and along with everyone else and for those who didn’t resort to insults, i appreciate it. We can agree to disagree on stuff and that’s ok. I have my opinion on this matter and so do you guys

wangcard · 2025-07-23T03:08:24-0400

RobertC said:
我很高兴休斯上尉的武器系统分析之一发表在《海军研究后勤杂志》上导
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

VLS 导弹的一个主要后勤问题是装弹时间、位置和机制。如果说 Pt Hueneme 在去年的装弹可行性演示之外取得了任何进展，那么它似乎并没有出现在文献或预算中。这使得当前的射击和奔跑模式可用于重新装弹作。这让我们回到了休斯上尉和唐格雷迪上尉从另一个方向赢得
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
。

Regarding this matter, I have a few questions I would like to hear your opinions on.
1. Let’s not talk about the Philippines. It is very likely to be used as a battlefield, but I doubt that the United States can definitely take off from military bases in South Korea and Japan to launch air strikes on China. These two countries have a population of tens of millions or even hundreds of millions. Will they really follow the United States to challenge China and North Korea and join this war that has no benefits but is extremely risky. This is a very worthy issue to discuss. Even in NATO, the backyard of the United States, no country dares to declare war on Russia openly.
2. Seven of the eleven aircraft carriers currently in the United States are more than 30 years old, and the latest aircraft carrier is only the Ford class. If the United States goes to war, how many aircraft carriers can it send to the Taiwan Strait. If all are lost, can the United States afford it? The shipbuilding capacity of the United States has determined that it will take at least 20 years to replenish the loss of an aircraft carrier.
3. The ex-factory price of the new Tomahawk missile is 35 million US dollars per unit. The unit price of the Tomahawk has doubled or tripled in two years. The purchase price of 70 Tomahawks in 2023 is 900 million US dollars, and the purchase price of 22 Tomahawks in 2025 is 760 million US dollars. This is not corruption. From this data, we can see that the US military industry has begun to decline rapidly. Give me a data to prove whether the US can produce and transport 1 million rounds of various ammunition from the mainland to the front line every month if a war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait. I want a precise source of information, not India's assumptions.

Blitzo · 2025-07-23T03:16:26-0400

PLAwatcher12 said:
Im done here, you won’t listen to anyone that doesn’t agree with you and you always resort to insults like you have in every conversation with me, you are an grown adult for crying out loud, insults don’t make you look cool, I said my points what btw you didn’t rebute other than saying but missiles, the US has thousands of missiles btw and missiles can damage Chinese bases too but you don’t want to hear that, and btw I’m not contuining because it’s a waste of my time not because I can’t continue, and one more thing just because people agree with you doesn’t make me wrong or you right.

Im done here it’s a waste of my time, I hope you have a good day and along with everyone else and for those who didn’t resort to insults, i appreciate it. We can agree to disagree on stuff and that’s ok. I have my opinion on this matter and so do you guys

If there is something for you to ponder, it is to accept that the current balance of power (and likely balance of power going forwards) is somewhat closer to what he envisioned than what you've envisioned.

My advice is to try and take that conclusion (even if you cognitively reject it), and try to reverse-engineer out the prerequisite circumstances for that to be true in terms of the domains you and he were quibbling about. That will probably produce a more accurate lay of the land and balance of power than what you presently have in mind.

wangcard · 2025-07-23T03:21:41-0400

PLAwatcher12 said:
Im done here, you won’t listen to anyone that doesn’t agree with you and you always resort to insults like you have in every conversation with me, you are an grown adult for crying out loud, insults don’t make you look cool, I said my points what btw you didn’t rebute other than saying but missiles, the US has thousands of missiles btw and missiles can damage Chinese bases too but you don’t want to hear that, and btw I’m not contuining because it’s a waste of my time not because I can’t continue, and one more thing just because people agree with you doesn’t make me wrong or you right.

Im done here it’s a waste of my time, I hope you have a good day and along with everyone else and for those who didn’t resort to insults, i appreciate it. We can agree to disagree on stuff and that’s ok. I have my opinion on this matter and so do you guys

4. If the United States goes to war, where will the US military expenditure come from? The United States is already heavily in debt, and its major international creditors are in East Asia. If a war breaks out, who will buy the huge amount of US Treasury bonds? And it is very likely that China will sell off US debt on a large scale, which will further aggravate the gap in US debt.
5. The United States has proved in April that the United States' dependence on China's goods is fatal. If a war breaks out. This will directly lead to a shortage of domestic goods in the United States. During World War II, the United States produced and sold its own goods, but now it relies on China. When the entire East Asia becomes a dangerous zone, who will provide the essential supplies needed by the American people?
6. China's army obeys the Communist Party, while the US army is independent of the two parties. This shows that if both parties do not have a strong determination to go to war, it is very likely that party disputes will affect the war. In the context of the two parties being torn apart, how to ensure the unity of the will of the two parties. There is also public opinion. The Chinese government is less affected by public opinion on decisive issues, while in the United States, the direction of the war often affects the general election, and the general election will also affect the government. If the war becomes a protracted war, can the US government remain in office under unfavorable conditions on the battlefield and not be affected by the nonsense of the media?

PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

manqiangrexue

Brigadier

RobertC

Junior Member

FriedRiceNSpice

Major

PLAwatcher12

Junior Member

RobertC

Junior Member

manqiangrexue

Brigadier

PLAwatcher12

Junior Member

wangcard

New Member

Blitzo

General

wangcard

New Member