The ABM systems in Japan/SK can mostly be taken out with hypersonics before they can take out any chinese nuclear missiles/rockets if it gets to that stage.
PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC
- Thread starter SEAD
- Start date
The problem is that "unlikely" doesn't equal impossible. The French also thought a German offensive through the Ardennes was "unlikely." I would rather assume both sides are capable of accumulating potent 1st strike options if they really want to. All of this has been covered earlier in the thread already.
If China concludes that an attack is imminent, based on all its gathered intel, then probably yes... But of course, that's a very difficult strategic decision. Just look at the other times in history when such go/no-go decisions had to be made.
It's not just if China concludes that an attack is imminent.
If China concludes that a war with the US is inevitable, that could also trigger a pre-emptive strike.
That would be the result of the US demonstrating more "resolve" to defend Taiwan.
Good point, except if China has to launch them urgently (e.g. silos) to avoid a US counterforce strike. Then those ABMs would have to be taken out preemptively before the conflict.
What is the Range of DF-100
If for example it was 2 thousand kilometers (!?) then DF-26 could approach the coast and its Range would be spectacular, even if the range of DF-100 was 1 thousand kilometers (?) it would have to be taken into account.
What do you think about this. And thank you very much for the very interesting thread.
If for example it was 2 thousand kilometers (!?) then DF-26 could approach the coast and its Range would be spectacular, even if the range of DF-100 was 1 thousand kilometers (?) it would have to be taken into account.
What do you think about this. And thank you very much for the very interesting thread.
That is a very interesting statement. If there anything that can be shared publicly?
Well, in a short duration operation that is true.
But remember that in a long campaign, the US can bring in additional assets and missiles from CONUS.
It's also the underestimation of Chinese resolve over Taiwan, which seems to happen every time you get new political or military leaders in the US.
From an ideological and belief point of view, remember that for the past 70 years, the school curriculum and media have been emphatic about Taiwan being part of China. That runs from the people in charge at the very top, and down to the very bottom.
From a political point of view, Taiwan represents a political challenge to the legitimacy of the Chinese state, because it is an unfinished civil war.
From a military point of view, an independent Taiwan would inevitably host US military forces and be the lynchpin of military containment along the 1st Island Chain to the Pacific. It would also represent a threat with offensive missiles targeting the Mainland China. On the other hand, Chinese control of Taiwan ends these potential threats and allows the Chinese military to focus on projecting power (extending a defensive perimeter) into the Pacific and beyond.
From a Mearsheimer realist point of view, we can use the Monroe Doctrine as an example of how the US jealously guards its prerogatives in the Americas. When Cuba started hosting Soviet forces, the US threatened nuclear Armageddon. And when Imperial Germany suggested a military alliance with Mexico, the US declared war against Germany.
But there is a lot of flexibility as to how One-China is interpreted and the current political status quo actually suits China fine, because the longer-term economic and military balance keeps shifting towards China.
The US pulling out its forward deployed forces would be viewed as abandonment by Japan, South Korea and the Philippines.
If the US can't provide economic prosperity or military security, then what use is an alliance with the US?
Exactly! For some reason, this is a controversial idea here. Except for a few people like @Blitzo, many seem to think you can simply 'absorb' the enemy's 1st strike offensive fires and then casually retaliate.
Any IADS can be saturated, for much less the cost of the IADS. In fact, all evidence indicates IADS don't even work as advertised. And if you get enough CMs/BMs through, you can do a ton of catastrophic damage in the opening wave. Add to that the degradation of the kill chains which would be required for retaliation, it just makes more sense to focus on offense rather then relying on defense.
This general principle has always been true in strategy, but it is even more pronounced in the age of CMs.
Last edited:
The controversial part isn't whether IADS can be overwhelmed, it's whether you can get enough assets in place to overwhelm it. The Chinese will surely detect any large scale attack, and thus be positioned and prepared for it.