PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
And what does Round 2 look like?

Does it look like the decades long wars which pitted the British Monarchy against the new French Republic and then the Napoleonic Empire? But the biggest difference is that China looks more like a unified Europe and is secure on land. China does have a larger population and economy than the US, so could focus on building a larger Navy as well.

Or would it look like the transformation of Imperial Germany into a Nazi Germany some 20 years later, seeking vengeance for World War 1? The biggest difference is that the US economy was far larger than Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany. In comparison, with 20 years of peace, China could aspire to grow its economy to much larger than the US.

Remember that today, China is the clear overall leader in terms of Third Industrial Revolution technologies ie. solar, wind energy, nuclear energy, electric vehicles, batteries, 5G, Artificial intelligence. If China leads the ongoing Third Industrial Revolution, you would expect China to become a hi-tech and high-income country. And with a Chinese population 4x larger than the US, you could expect an economy 4x larger. That would support a much larger military than the US.

It just reinforces the point that the US is unlikely to *win* in any US-China war.

And whilst all this is going on, the chances of catastrophic and irreversible climate change increase significantly (ie. an increase of 5 degrees centigrade)
Click to expand...

The discussion was about the victory conditions of the conflict and the outcomes of it, rather than how any subsequent successive potential conflict or competition decades post-conflict may look like.

That kind of long term post-conflict speculation is not even something we can begin to think about, so trying to make assertive arguments for how that should be factored into conditions of victory of the conflict at hand, is not reasonable at all.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
The US, in its long position of geostrategic privilege, will not see it that way.

When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
Click to expand...

Very true.

Let's say China becomes much larger than the US

If we're going to thread a path which avoids a US-China war, it is the US which will be expected to concede geostrategic space to China in the Western Pacific

A Chinese version of the Monroe Doctrine would expect nothing less
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
Very true.

Let's say China becomes much larger than the US

If we're going to thread a path which avoids a US-China war, it is the US which will be expected to concede geostrategic space to China in the Western Pacific

A Chinese version of the Monroe Doctrine would expect nothing less
Click to expand...

What I mean in that post, is that the US will likely respond very poorly to China seeking to achieve something akin to geostrategic equality vis-a-vis the US because the US is accustomed to its geostrategic privilege.

That is to say, the idea that the US will simply concede geostrategic space to China is unlikely, because it sees such an outcome as oppression, and that the only "fair" geostrategic balance is one in which the US is capable of maintaining a large variety of heavily fortified bases and permanently forward deployed naval forces near China's population and economic and industrial centers via an array of military alliance partners.
Thus, the US is likely to use all appropriate measures to resist the "oppression" where it does not possess a large swathe of military bases near China's doorstep.


We are already seeing this over the last decade or so to now, and the entire US westpac policy has basically been oriented in a manner where the US is seeking to preserve that geostrategic privilege in the face of China's geoeconomic and military power that has been growing.
 
A

ashnole

New Member
Registered Member
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
I feel like some of this assumptions are giving the PLA a bit more credit and the US a bit less credit than is safe.

By 2030 I would be surprised if the PLA had more H-20s in service than the US did B-21s.
Given the PLA currently has some 30-40 Y-20 airframes in service, building 160-170 airframes total between now and 2030 also seems a bit optimistic.

I expect the US to have more than only very few Block 4 F-35s by 2030, and I think it is reasonable to expect even some elements/form of NGAD in service.

But sure, add some capabilities to both sides...
Click to expand...

It does look like the first flight of the H-20 is imminent and would therefore come before the first flight of the B-21.

We also see the USAF publicly stating the development of military systems is much faster in China.

In terms of procurement of military systems, I reckon China will be spending more than the US within 5 years. That is based on SIPRI reporting.

So in 2030, shouldn't the default expectation be more H-20 in service than B-21?

---

In a similar line of logic, the production of 20 Y-20 per year doesn't sound excessive. After 10 more years, there would still be less than 400 airframes in total. That would only be half the equivalent US number below

Currently, the USAF have 500 large airborne tankers and another 300 large transport aircraft.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
The discussion was about the victory conditions of the conflict and the outcomes of it, rather than how any subsequent successive potential conflict or competition decades post-conflict may look like.

That kind of long term post-conflict speculation is not even something we can begin to think about, so trying to make assertive arguments for how that should be factored into conditions of victory of the conflict at hand, is not reasonable at all.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not in this thread, but future scenarios beyond an immediate war are worth discussing, precisely because US policymakers aren't thinking about this.
 
O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
ashnole said:
Will never stop being funny just how easily and how confidently people can say such things as if these things are like child's play.
Click to expand...
You disagree that in 1st and 2nd Island Chain, US forces will be annihilated? Go open a map and see what forces China and US have in the region and come back at me again

You also disagree that the PLA will have the element of suprise? As I said in that point (which conveniently you didn't fully quote), China can decide whanever it likes when it will attack. And it doesn't mean that China needs to do a Taiwan amphibious landing on the first day of the war. Unless you somehow think that missile attacks needs months long of waiting time to get prepared.

And about the missile production (which again very conveniently you didnt quote the full section), I meant that as an expanded war after the Taiwan war which would be when China was in full time war economy. Do you really find it unthinkable that China can produce 10000s of missiles in full mode total war production?

Clearly, you aren't aware of China's industrial capabilities if you think that this is impossible for China to do

Nothing is easy, everything military/war related has complications. However given that basic war fundamentals favour China's military, I maintain that everything inside 1st, and 2nd (could need a couple more years for that to get 100% capability) Island Chain can be sank/destroyed sans submarines ofc which obviously cant win a war by themselves.


Next time before you do your one liners (which by the way are against forum rules) you properly quote the sections you are replying to and properly explain your position with something more than a simple sentence.

And its strange how even with violating a clear cut rule you are even getting a like by a moderator. One liners are generally accepted for posting news but not accepted when used in a discussion/debate


In case you or someone else has forgotten:

SD Forum Rules of Behavior

Jeff Head with the approval of other active SDF MODs and myself has streamed lined the rules of this forum..making them easier to read and understand. Great job Jeff, the next two posts inform all users what SD is about: PREAMBLE AND BIASES There has been a lot of discussion about bias...and...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
  • Do not make one line posts. You will be warned if you persist in doing so.
Click to expand...
 
NiuBiDaRen

NiuBiDaRen

Brigadier
Registered Member
Overbom said:
You disagree that in 1st and 2nd Island Chain, US forces will be annihilated? Go open a map and see what forces China and US have in the region and come back at me again

You also disagree that the PLA will have the element of suprise? As I said in that point (which conveniently you didn't fully quote), China can decide whanever it likes when it will attack. And it doesn't mean that China needs to do a Taiwan amphibious landing on the first day of the war. Unless you somehow think that missile attacks needs months long of waiting time to get prepared.

And about the missile production (which again very conveniently you didnt quote the full section), I meant that as an expanded war after the Taiwan war which would be when China was in full time war economy. Do you really find it unthinkable that China can produce 10000s of missiles in full mode total war production?

Clearly, you aren't aware of China's industrial capabilities if you think that this is impossible for China to do

Nothing is easy, everything military/war related has complications. However given that basic war fundamentals favour China's military, I maintain that everything inside 1st, and 2nd (could need a couple more years for that to get 100% capability) Island Chain can be sank/destroyed sans submarines ofc which obviously cant win a war by themselves.


Next time before you do your one liners (which by the way are against forum rules) you properly quote the sections you are replying to and properly explain your position with something more than a simple sentence.

And its strange how even with violating a clear cut rule you are even getting a like by a moderator. One liners are generally accepted for posting news but not accepted when used in a discussion/debate


In case you or someone else has forgotten:

SD Forum Rules of Behavior

Jeff Head with the approval of other active SDF MODs and myself has streamed lined the rules of this forum..making them easier to read and understand. Great job Jeff, the next two posts inform all users what SD is about: PREAMBLE AND BIASES There has been a lot of discussion about bias...and...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
Click to expand...
His username ashnole is extremely suspect
 
O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
NiuBiDaRen said:
His username ashnole is extremely suspect
Click to expand...
He sure likes to counter hundreds of words long posts with single line responses. Should be a bannable offence by itself to do such thing as it is extremely disrespectful.

If he has a specific point which he disagrees, he can (fully) quote the section he disagrees, and then properly put in writing his ideas/arguments instead of what he just did.

Its like someone spending 15 minutes to write a long post to argue something and then someone responds with "LoL No!". Often happens in reddit, Facebook, Twitter threads, and other similar garbage social media places
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top