You are aware my point was never disagreeing with you correct? All my point is that saying it’s basically impossible for the US to win is not true and the US is still a threat. And there is no reason to share what major is or what university I go to. And my point about Russia is war is unpredictable and you can’t tell who will win or lose
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
Except they can't. Not when you have no runways to use, your base infrastructure has been destroyed, and are under constant ISR watch and bombardment. You're also leaving out the logistical portion. Where exactly are they getting all these munitions to be able to "do damage"? Are C-17s just flying in and out like nothing supplying them while the PLAAF/PLANAF just lets them waltz by? US has no realistic ability to take out Chinese bases and inflict the same level of damage that China can on them. And yes, US weapon stock quite literally is nothing but glide bombs and subsonic cruise missiles. What else are you referring to? TBMs? ATACMS has only a 300km range and is old. PrSM has a 500 km range, but the US doesn't have the same level of salvo power or ability to inflict damage at any of these bases, let alone any bases somewhat deep in China.
That's not at all what I said. And yes, Russia being "unprepared" is quite literally why they're doing bad; what are you talking about? If Russia's military wasn't an old joke and they were serious about their invasion, they should've taken Ukraine in a month at worst. Even with Russia's failures and lacking certain assets, contrary to what some people believe, they did make a good amount of progress in the opening stage of the invasion but just stalled.
Last edited:
sure if China manages to destroy all US bases they can use in Japan, and the Philippines then sure they pose no threat and if they for some reason can’t repair it at all then yes they pose no threat but that isn’t exactly the most realistic and the US stockpile isn’t just glide bombs and subsonic missiles while it certainly is a majority it isn’t all, and yes those older weapons can still work and be deadly, Ukraine has shown that and it’s a mix of both, war is unpredictable and you can’t always tell who win and Russia incompetence but that’s getting off topic
This is why numbers matter, because your counter-argument boils down to "China won't be able to destroy all US bases realistically" which is a reasonable position to take.
However, the question is not "can China realistically destroy all US bases" but rather "what is the effective sortie rates that each side can generate after and during their net effective fires/defenses are taken into account".
The argument that the people opposite you are making, is that the US will not be able to generate effective sortie rates at a scale that will be able to contest the PLA realistically in a conflict over Taiwan, but the problem is that neither they nor you are able to produce convincing, definitive numbers, even though there have been whispers and indirect indicators over the last few years that suggest the current balance of power is one closer to that of what your opponents are arguing than your position.
They don't even need to destroy all. US simply doesn't have the necessary amount of bases + carriers to sustain or match the airpower that China can bring from their mainland alone which rapidly grows by the year. What I stated is much more realistic than some of the things you have happened to say in here. China can hit US bases much more than the US can hit theirs. US stockpile is just glide bombs and cruise missiles; I don't know what else you could possibly be referring to besides TBMs like ATACMS and PrSM. China uses everything from glide bombs, cruise missiles (subsonic/supersonic/soon hypersonic*), drones (e.g. Shahed-like drones), MarVed ballistics, HGVs, ALBMs, etc., with multiple launch platforms. Slow and subsonic cruise missiles are not potent weapons against peer countries like China. You'd have a point if the US had 2K+ MRBM/IRBMs like China does, but they don't. Glide bombs are useless here so they're just stuck with subsonic cruise missiles. They are easy shoot downs against modern defenses.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
What bias is it called for you to believe nothing from anyone who disagrees with you?
Yeah pretty much
Although it's true that "war is unpredictable," if you were to use it in an argument, there would be no point in saying anything. Somalia can beat the US because war is unpredictable.
Since forever in every forum in the world. Your idea that all ideas are just opinions and equally accepted is something we tell 3 year olds. "Bears fly when nobody is watching." "Mike Tyson could kill 10 gorillas with his hands." "If you fell into a vat of nuclear waste, you could become a superhero." Those are all opinions and ridiculed everywhere, just like yours.
It's not an insult to point out your horrible and unprofessional English. We don't have to pretend it's good just because you have a disability.
He addressed a group of people hoping they'd give him money. Just because you and I can't go doesn't mean it's not public. If you do something in front of your whole university, you've done it in public even if it is a private university.
This is how the US president feels about a war over Taiwan when he's with his advisors with no media or donors he needs to please.
I don't know what "so many" means. I dropped a handfull of beans on the ground; there were so many, probably like 30. Where would they be launched from? Bases that are fire? What type of missiles? subsonic ones? Unless you mean ICBMs in a nuclear war, your statement is wrong.
We do it better than anyone else in the world and most certainly in the Asian theatre.
No I never said that. The US is freaking out over China's rise. Trump's election and trade war are all unnecessary self-inflicted pain from an America that is scared of China.
In Asia, against China, it is.
There's nothing to admit. If 80 people think it's true and one person thinks it's false, it's most likely true. This is real evidence that something is true. Somewhere in your imagination, you think that confirmation bias is a bias, so it's negative, so it must be false. In reality, if you think something and everyone tells you it's wrong, that's strong evidence that it's probably wrong, especially if these people are all more qualified than you on the subject. Having people agree with you is good, not bad.
Wat?
No, they're useless because they'll be on fire. Unless you meant they'll take up Chinese missiles in which case that's their use.
The numbers are very limited with the range needed to hit China but China's numbers are enormous. You didn't think that China crumbles with a few hit, did you? You didn't think it's the holy grail to slip a few through, did you? War is a numbers game of how much damage one can inflict on the other.
I said its drastically more likely for China to win than the US.
That's exactly why they're doing poorly, not "bad." LOL
If "war isn't easy to predict" were a valid point, there would be no discussion worth having. It's true but only to a certain extent and it would make the discussion meaningless if employed, especially beyond its usefulness.
Exactly
They can repair it and China can keep striking
What's unrealistic about it? China's massive missile stock, manufacturing capabilities and missile tech make it the most realistic scenerio.
War is a numbers game. Having very few means they can't do significant damage even if they land.
A dude with a knife can be deadly. This is a desperate cope.
Shrug, doesn't help anything you say.
Last edited:
FriedRiceNSpice
Major
Nothing is impossible. Perhaps the US suddenly rolls out a completely new technology or capability out of the blue that negates or significantly suppresses a major Chinese capability: IE a Golden Dome equipped with directed energy weapons based on new extremely cost effective space launch capabilities that is able to reliably intercept Chinese missiles. Or maybe the US has actually hidden tens of thousands of nuclear warheads in satellites orbitting over China. However, the chances are low enough that it can rightfully be characterized as "basically impossible," though not "absolutely impossible." In general, the early phase of a war is the most unpredictable: the true efficacy of weapons systems, doctrines, and tactics cannot be determined in peacetime with a sufficiently high level of confidence. However, as the war drags on, the outcome will become increasingly driven by factors such as the amount of resources that each side is able to effectively utilize for the war effort and thus become more predictable. In the context of a hypothetical conflict over Taiwan, the likelihood of favorable military outcomes for the US decreases over time, ultimately converging to a very small but non-zero value.
Last edited:
Yes if war takes awhile China would win I don’t deny that, but if we’re talking about from the get go what I think people are than saying 95-99% chance China wins is not true. My point isn’t that 95-99% chance is nesscary wrong if war goes on for awhile but rather it’s not that from the get go. Im not even saying china will lose I do think they will win even the US gets involved but im also saying the US could win and that it’s not close impossible
FriedRiceNSpice
Major
You need to understand that even if the first two or three months go disastrously for China, China will keep on fighting until its advantages compound to the point of being able to steamroll over all opposition.
Like I said before, consider past history:
Japan knocked out nearly every battleship in the US Pacific Fleet at a time when the battleships was still (incorrectly) considered the lynchpin of naval power. Within a year, the Pacific fleet was sending IJN fleets to the bottom of the sea and the war ended with Japan reduced to rubble.
Germany captured millions of Soviet POWs, destroyed half the Red Army, and fought to within 50km of Moscow during the first two years of its conflict with the USSR. Yet for the last two years of the war, the Red Army was destroying entire German field armies all the way to Berlin.
Or one of my favorite from ancient history: Rome's entire army was enveloped and massacred by Hanibal. Twenty years later, Carthage was erased from history.
Last edited: