Is the free world ready? Or, is this guy just a real world General Ripper?
I don't know. We should prepare for war with China, but just not brag about it to the whole world I think.
and what do you think has been going on for the last decade?
russias bullshit has just put things into sharper focus for a wider audience.
As almost always, I have no idea what you are talking about. What's been going on for a decade, preparing for war with China or bragging about it? If we have been preparing for a full-on hot war with China, there's a lot of very smart people who don't think we are ready for it. So how long does it take to get ready in your eyes or are we ready right now?
a strategic pivot from Europe to the Pacific has been going on since Obama. I don't know how you missed it for a little over a decade. I also think we're a lot more prepared then the Chinese are at the moment.
Oh, so Obama fixed this 10 years ago. I would refer you to the post our very own Tripoli gave us Jan. 14th on the China Invades Taiwan thread where the CSIS wargamed numerous possible scenarios involving a Chinese invasion of the island and an American response. The results were that in all but 3 scenarios, the U.S. would defeat an invasion of Taiwan but the cost would be, "staggering losses" for both sides actually. In every case American Nuclear Aircraft Carriers would not survive the conflict unless they were able run fast enough to get out of Chinese ballistic missile range in time. Does this sound like being prepared to you? Air losses would also be heavy as well as Nuclear Submarines, 20% or more, well above what the U.S. could replace during the fight. How did YOU miss this? And this was for a 2026 time frame and the numbers will only get worse toward 2030 or later. This sounds like being prepared, but only prepared to lose.
Clearly much more needs to be done by us and Taiwan to deter any aggression by Ping and soon.
I never said fixed so don't try your game of putting words in peoples mouths.
I said the process started then. Im also well aware of the long history of various groups, think tanks and
lobbyists producing the material they want, when they want that fits whatever narrative and spending bill.
And no slash, I didnt miss the wargame article. Pretty sure I even posted in the thread.
What I find sad is that you seem to not be able to do your own research on these topics and instead rely
on whatever is fed to you here and on a select few tv stations. You have the time, maybe you should read
more about the subject matter.
So in your much more informed and obviously unbiased mind, when will we be prepared for this conflict, being that Obama began the, 'pivot' to the Pacific 10 years ago? Exactly how long do your many sources that YOU are intelligent enough to access and I am not, will it take for America and Taiwan to defeat this invasion, a week, a month, 6 months? For someone so informed, I don't recall you giving us this info. And how many lives will it cost, ships, planes and submarines? Please tell me what your many sources say. Because I know you love talking about killing Russians, but I've not heard anything from you regarding killing Chinese. :huh:
Oh, and your usual sending of vile, hate-filled PM's doesn't help see the logic of your arguments. And sure as hell don't intimidate me. Have a nice night.
LOL @ hate filled.
I'll answer you question like this. I've taken the time to read articles about topics such as this forever.
Sources can range from things like Proceedings to newspaper articles to internet bs. I don't think you
actually have much of an interest in it unless is crosses whatever crisis news feed your watching that day.
If tucker ain't offended, you don't know and you don't care. That's your choice. Good for you.
Currently I think that china would be biting off way more then it can chew making a play for Taiwan.
First we wouldn't be going at it alone as I think that the Ukraine has reminded Asia that the small guy can
win and that coalition building and interdependence goes a long way. There would be no surprise assault on
Taiwan, the build up and chatter would be seen for weeks ahead of time. That lets the US, whos been
aggressively exercising with just about every country in theater, do what its shown to do best. Build
teams quickly and meet the threat. Did you know we're just about to close deals on being back in the
Philippines? Can you understand what that does to basing options for allied forces?
As for those allies, china would be looking at the US, Taiwan, Japan, Australia and very possibly Vietnam, Malaysia,
South Korea the Philippines and maybe India. Thats a lot of real world shit to want to chew
through. And no, it wouldn't be for altruistic bs and freedom. The worlds economy can't put up with the inconvenience.
It's the tech version of the first Gulf War. The hit that china's economy would take by itself isn't worth the risk. The
internal political hit doubly so.
I'll get into what I think the exchange rates of equipment would be later. Safe to say I think the plaf loses a lot more then
we do.
Quote from: Sir Slash on February 01, 2023, 11:35:47 PMSo in your much more informed and obviously unbiased mind, when will we be prepared for this conflict, being that Obama began the, 'pivot' to the Pacific 10 years ago? Exactly how long do your many sources that YOU are intelligent enough to access and I am not, will it take for America and Taiwan to defeat this invasion, a week, a month, 6 months? For someone so informed, I don't recall you giving us this info. And how many lives will it cost, ships, planes and submarines? Please tell me what your many sources say. Because I know you love talking about killing Russians, but I've not heard anything from you regarding killing Chinese. :huh:
Oh, and your usual sending of vile, hate-filled PM's doesn't help see the logic of your arguments. And sure as hell don't intimidate me. Have a nice night.
The US is getting more access to bases and working with forces in the Philippines. I'm not sure how excited anyone is about killing Chinese, but if China tries to take Taiwan by force, a lot of Chinese will get killed on both sides so maybe it's not such a good idea for China to try to take Taiwan by force from the point of view of not killing large numbers of Chinese in Taiwan or elsewhere.
And on the bases in the Philippines (according to Bloomberg):
"It is a really big deal," US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said Thursday at a news conference alongside Philippine Defense Secretary Carlito Galvez. "This is an opportunity to increase our effectiveness and interoperability. It is not about permanent basing."
Also, I read the notorious memo from Air Mobility Command. It's nice that other arms of the armed services are worried about China. It seems like people thought the whole problem of containing China was a US Navy Problem. Clearly the Navy can only do so much and a big war in Asia is likely to be a problem too big for the Navy to handle on its own.
Considering the regime and its history, I get the impression that mainland China might not be able to care less about how many Chinese they have to kill to get what they want.
Still, they're worrying about replacement population right now, so maybe that wil..... wait, I just remembered they've been welding people into skyscrapers for the sake of national survival in the past year. Never mind, carry on. :buck2:
Quote from: JasonPratt on February 02, 2023, 08:26:53 AMConsidering the regime and its history, I get the impression that mainland China might not be able to care less about how many Chinese they have to kill to get what they want.
Still, they're worrying about replacement population right now, so maybe that wil..... wait, I just remembered they've been welding people into skyscrapers for the sake of national survival in the past year. Never mind, carry on. :buck2:
I don't know what's up with China. On the other hand, as the Russians seem to be discovering, maybe, not caring how many people you kill is not always a formula for quick victory.
One thing worth considering when one tries to picture what a Chinese attack on Chinese Taiwan would look like is, no matter how you cut it, attacking Taiwan is a lot more difficult than trying to drive all over Ukraine in a few weeks or months or years or decades. It's an amphibious assault without air superiority versus an island that is likely to be defended by the world's most powerful air force and navy. On the face of it, maybe not an enterprise with much chance of success -- though with lots of modern weapons ready to go on all sides of the prospective battle area -- there's a significant chance that lots of expensive stuff will get blown up.
I watched most of the video but I'm not sure what to think about it. It seems to me all the video is about is some general trying to motivate his troops by using exciting language.
Now if you are asking will there be a war between the USA and China, then that's a different story.
Quote from: W8taminute on February 02, 2023, 10:57:22 AMI watched most of the video but I'm not sure what to think about it. It seems to me all the video is about is some general trying to motivate his troops by using exciting language.
Now if you are asking will there be a war between the USA and China, then that's a different story.
Boy did the point fly over your head. :ROFL:
It's about a general using extremely careless language and directing subordinates to take certain actions based upon assumptions that do not necessarily constitute official US policy.
Star believes all of Asia will jump into a war with China. I'm not so sure, all of them being within range of Ping's Ballistic Missile force would cause most to sit on the sidelines, at least to see who's going to come-out on top. No this war would be fought by the U.S. and Taiwan. One country a hundred miles away, the other what 7,000? From a nuclear armed nation full of billions of people. That sounds like we could handle that in a slow weekend. :Party:
On the other hand, the Chi Comms could easily let Little Kim off his leash and then Japan and S. Korea would have to get involved. That's another 35,000 American troops as well as South Korea to protect. Starting to get big isn't it? Maybe out-of-control?
Star's right I believe about the Chi Comms build-up before the invasion giving us some warning ahead of time, the economic disruption to BOTH nations would be catastrophic, and in addition, China hasn't been in a large war since, Korea? So their troops really have zero combat experience. Of course so do Taiwan's, at least some of our troops have been shot at recently.
But this won't be an Army war. It will be fought by the Navy and Air Force who have not since WWII been in a conflict where large numbers of their ships and planes are being destroyed. How that will effect the commanders, as well as the politicians back in Washington, is impossible, even for someone as well read as Starfury, to be able to tell for certain.
China can take Taiwan any time they want, but at what price is the question? If Ping thinks it will/might be too high, he'll back-off. We should do everything in our power to place that doubt in his mind, with whatever Taiwan needs to make that happen. Have we done that already? I doubt it or else the Chinese would not be so aggressive and announcing their plans for reunification by force. Apparently Mr. Ping hasn't gotten the message from Star that he can't possibly win.
Please Star, go to Beijing and tell him yourself so he'll know for certain. That's one ticket I'd be happy to chip-in on. :grin:
China has more to lose then gain making a play for Taiwan. as long as Taiwan exists he can use it as a domestic distraction which actually does help him maintain power.
I would also point out that China does not currently have tons of nukes laying about. it's a more empty threat in the real world then russias saber rattling.
Having lots of soldiers means nothing if they have no way of getting over to Taiwan. I am pretty sure that Taiwan now has a plethora of drones ready for this sort of thing.
The most common sin of Liberals is Condescension. The most common sin of Conservatives is Certitude. The most common shared sin of both sides is Contempt for the other side. Make of that what you will.
Ward Carroll introduces his host as a retired General. Do they have subordinates? I've not been able to find the specific quote that is triggering all the media coverage? Or am I missing something? I'll admit I haven't had time to watch the whole video because my wife has a broken foot and I'm the sole everything for the family right now!
US hegemony hasn't ended yet, but it seems to be eroding steadily in the face of Chinese ascension. That isn't the end of the world, IMHO, but it would be nice to see more democracies step up to the plate and get assertive with their more authoritarian neighbors.
I think the battle for air superiority in and around Taiwan would be the pivotal driver of who wins what. The US has a half-dozen air bases in Japan and Okinawa that can be reinforced quickly, IF we can keep a ground-based air defense network intact. Those bases can still be hit and would be repeatedly hit in any conflict, but historically it's proven a lot harder to sink air fields than to sink ships.
Obviously, Taiwan is a lot closer to Chinese airbases than it is to Japanese airbases. I assume the Chinese would try to establish air superiority and suppress Taiwanese defenses long before launching an amphibious invasion. But I think, for China, the notion of enforcing a blockade is safer, much less likely to trigger a unified response from pro-democracy forces, and ultimately a better play.
That particular drama is likely to last longer than our lifetimes, but I don't think it's (yet) as bad as the Cold War seemed for almost half a century.
The Chinese would have to blockade a lot more than just Taiwan to effectively blockade Taiwan. And it's because of that that other regional powers would come in on the side of the United States and Taiwan to help out. Not because they like Taiwan but because it's in there own economic interest to do so.
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on February 02, 2023, 01:44:19 PMThe most common sin of Liberals is Condescension. The most common sin of Conservatives is Certitude. The most common shared sin of both sides is Contempt for the other side. Make of that what you will.
Ward Carroll introduces his host as a retired General. Do they have subordinates? I've not been able to find the specific quote that is triggering all the media coverage? Or am I missing something? I'll admit I haven't had time to watch the whole video because my wife has a broken foot and I'm the sole everything for the family right now!
US hegemony hasn't ended yet, but it seems to be eroding steadily in the face of Chinese ascension. That isn't the end of the world, IMHO, but it would be nice to see more democracies step up to the plate and get assertive with their more authoritarian neighbors.
I think the battle for air superiority in and around Taiwan would be the pivotal driver of who wins what. The US has a half-dozen air bases in Japan and Okinawa that can be reinforced quickly, IF we can keep a ground-based air defense network intact. Those bases can still be hit and would be repeatedly hit in any conflict, but historically it's proven a lot harder to sink air fields than to sink ships.
Obviously, Taiwan is a lot closer to Chinese airbases than it is to Japanese airbases. I assume the Chinese would try to establish air superiority and suppress Taiwanese defenses long before launching an amphibious invasion. But I think, for China, the notion of enforcing a blockade is safer, much less likely to trigger a unified response from pro-democracy forces, and ultimately a better play.
That particular drama is likely to last longer than our lifetimes, but I don't think it's (yet) as bad as the Cold War seemed for almost half a century.
The guest is retired Navy Commander Bryan McGrath. Commander McGrath is the founding director of Delex Consulting, Studies and Analysis. On active duty, he commanded the USS Bulkeley (DDG-84) from 2004 to 2006; he also led the team that produced the 2007 maritime strategy, A Cooperative Strategy for 21st-Century Seapower, and was its primary author.
The memo of the Air Force general is quoted in the video. Here is a copy:
(https://images.radio.com/aiu-media/AF-memo1-bcd7ab08-442c-4958-a03c-5935a9b9689c.jpg?width=800)
(https://images.radio.com/aiu-media/AF-memo2-e8fb6a05-bd39-4085-a52b-14adef8db105.jpg?width=800)
This guy is commander of Mobility Command. He is paid to move stuff, so the bellicose nature of the memo comes across as unhinged. This General has a history of making some wild comments that have resulted in his censure in the past. For instance, he once said publicly, ""Lethality matters most...When you can kill your enemy, every part of your life is better. Your food tastes better. Your marriage is stronger..."
I mean, WTF? Only someone who is part of Mobility Command and who has never actually had to kill anyone could say something this absurd.
Quote from: Sir Slash on February 02, 2023, 12:06:11 PMStar believes all of Asia will jump into a war with China. I'm not so sure, all of them being within range of Ping's Ballistic Missile force would cause most to sit on the sidelines, at least to see who's going to come-out on top. No this war would be fought by the U.S. and Taiwan. One country a hundred miles away, the other what 7,000? From a nuclear armed nation full of billions of people. That sounds like we could handle that in a slow weekend. :Party:
On the other hand, the Chi Comms could easily let Little Kim off his leash and then Japan and S. Korea would have to get involved. That's another 35,000 American troops as well as South Korea to protect. Starting to get big isn't it? Maybe out-of-control?
Star's right I believe about the Chi Comms build-up before the invasion giving us some warning ahead of time, the economic disruption to BOTH nations would be catastrophic, and in addition, China hasn't been in a large war since, Korea? So their troops really have zero combat experience. Of course so do Taiwan's, at least some of our troops have been shot at recently.
But this won't be an Army war. It will be fought by the Navy and Air Force who have not since WWII been in a conflict where large numbers of their ships and planes are being destroyed. How that will effect the commanders, as well as the politicians back in Washington, is impossible, even for someone as well read as Starfury, to be able to tell for certain.
China can take Taiwan any time they want, but at what price is the question? If Ping thinks it will/might be too high, he'll back-off. We should do everything in our power to place that doubt in his mind, with whatever Taiwan needs to make that happen. Have we done that already? I doubt it or else the Chinese would not be so aggressive and announcing their plans for reunification by force. Apparently Mr. Ping hasn't gotten the message from Star that he can't possibly win.
Please Star, go to Beijing and tell him yourself so he'll know for certain. That's one ticket I'd be happy to chip-in on. :grin:
It might be more useful for the Chinese for you to go to Bejing. I think it would be new and marvelous news to them that they can take Taiwan any time they want.
There might be a few doubters among the Bejingians since while the US Air Force and Navy have not had massive losses in recent times, the Chinese Air Force and Navy have never been in any major wars at all. Moreover, they might well wonder what levels of losses they would be expected to take while making an amphibious assault against technologically superior foes who are likely to have the cooperation of every regional power from Singapore to Japan (including the Philippines).
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 02, 2023, 11:48:47 AMQuote from: W8taminute on February 02, 2023, 10:57:22 AMI watched most of the video but I'm not sure what to think about it. It seems to me all the video is about is some general trying to motivate his troops by using exciting language.
Now if you are asking will there be a war between the USA and China, then that's a different story.
Boy did the point fly over your head. :ROFL:
It's about a general using extremely careless language and directing subordinates to take certain actions based upon assumptions that do not necessarily constitute official US policy.
Well, yeah, I knew that! Substitute my 'exciting language' for your 'careless language' and there you go. :laugh:
I heard the Zumwalts are being fitted for hypersonic killing death rays. It may have been a stealth ship fail, but the nuke power plant powering never ending lasers could be the tide turning naval weapon in the battle for Taiwan.
its not nuclear powered. it does however have a nifty power system that lets you reroute energy where you need it.
The language used in that memo is bizarre and if the General did not have a history of writing/behaving/speaking like that I would almost think the memo was fake.
Additionally I really wonder if the Chinese boogeyman has been played up so much in the US that if real conflict began, would China turn out to be a paper tiger like Russia?
One assumes that American planes based out of Okinawa and the Japanese home islands would intervene in any proposed Taiwan dispute. And one also assumes that the Chinese would move to attack those bases. I have to think Japan would get sucked into that quickly.
BUT, there's a big difference between "being opposed to a Chinese invasion" and "opposing a Chinese invasion".
It's my understanding that the CSIS (?) war games from last month covered a number of such scenarios, with largely similar results. Opposed amphibious supply lines are certainly more vulnerable to high-tech interdiction than rail and road supply lines. For the sake of the world, I hope this never turns real.
I tend to agree with you Gus.
The saying that nation's fight in a new war based on their last war's lessons. What the hell did China learn from their last one?
^JH brought up the fact that China did in fact fight the West to a standstill in Korea last time, and that was when their military was still in a very primitive state and the Chinese as a whole were still recovering from the Pacific War and their own civil war. So at this point in 2023 they have had 70 years to learn and develop their own weapons.
Some 'indigenous' weapons, from Iran, North Korea, Russia...turn out to be crap. Some, like Turkish drones, are better. Where will Chinese weapons fall in the spectrum? Utter crap or formidable?
And does it even matter if they are planning on throwing a million man force at Taiwan anyway?
there are many reasons Korea played out like it did.
Sorry about your wife's foot Sooner. Hoping she's better soon. Would that be her, 'ass-kicking' foot? If so, better stay on her other side if there's a large cast involved... from personal experience.
I think we cannot abjectly assume Chinese equipment is crap because they stole most of the tech from us. It their stuff is crap how much better can ours be?
Interested in what everyone thinks the effectiveness of those Diesel-Electric subs the Swedes used to sneak-up on the U.S. Navy Carrier Battlegroup a year or so back would be in this conflict by Taiwan? At the very least it might give Comrade Ping a few additional items to ponder before pulling the trigger. :lifesaver:
Quote from: Windigo on February 02, 2023, 08:51:12 PMI tend to agree with you Gus.
The saying that nation's fight in a new war based on their last war's lessons. What the hell did China learn from their last one?
Maybe they learned not to attack Vietnam. Pushing out a lot of ships and planes makes for a much better form of not-too-bloody regional swaggering than actually attacking anybody.
I'm leaning towards the sentiment that a lot of the indigenous Chinese equipment is crap even if they stole our tech...just a gut feeling since almost 100% of said Chinese military equipment is untested.
I also say that as a consumer who, when buying anything from books to tools to games to appliances, is more often than not disappointed in Chinese quality.
Who knows if their military production is any different?
Quote from: Sir Slash on February 02, 2023, 11:09:46 PM...
Interested in what everyone thinks the effectiveness of those Diesel-Electric subs the Swedes used to sneak-up on the U.S. Navy Carrier Battlegroup a year or so back would be in this conflict by Taiwan? At the very least it might give Comrade Ping a few additional items to ponder before pulling the trigger. :lifesaver:
There is a lot of background noise in the Taiwan straits, which will make submarines more effective. (Source: The Chinese Invasion Threat, pg. 177). The shallow depths in the straits makes it a challenging, (but not insurmountably so) environment for large submarines. Other hydrographic features, such as deep water SW of Tainan and off the east coast of Taiwan makes this area suitable for SSNs. IMHO, SS/SSKs will excel in the narrow, confined and noisy straits. Against an invasion force, in these confined waters their slow speed will not be a significant disadvantage, and the noisy environment will make them a very significant threat. However, to fully exploit this environment, we will have to do regular training and planning with the Japanese and Taiwanese navy for this scenario.
Quote from: Tripoli on February 03, 2023, 09:53:08 AMQuote from: Sir Slash on February 02, 2023, 11:09:46 PM...
Interested in what everyone thinks the effectiveness of those Diesel-Electric subs the Swedes used to sneak-up on the U.S. Navy Carrier Battlegroup a year or so back would be in this conflict by Taiwan? At the very least it might give Comrade Ping a few additional items to ponder before pulling the trigger. :lifesaver:
There is a lot of background noise in the Taiwan straits, which will make submarines more effective. (Source: The Chinese Invasion Threat, pg. 177). The shallow depths in the straits makes it a challenging, (but not insurmountably so) environment for large submarines. Other hydrographic features, such as deep water SW of Tainan and off the east coast of Taiwan makes this area suitable for SSNs. IMHO, SS/SSKs will excel in the narrow, confined and noisy straits. Against an invasion force, in these confined waters their slow speed will not be a significant disadvantage, and the noisy environment will make them a very significant threat. However, to fully exploit this environment, we will have to do regular training and planning with the Japanese and Taiwanese navy for this scenario.
The recent wargame
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/230109_Cancian_FirstBattle_NextWar.pdf?WdEUwJYWIySMPIr3ivhFolxC_gZQuSOQ
Found that the biggest limitation on the effectiveness of US Subs was that they had to go out of the battle area to get more torpedoes a lot since they tended to use a lot of torpedoes.
Quote from: Gusington on February 03, 2023, 09:48:41 AMI'm leaning towards the sentiment that a lot of the indigenous Chinese equipment is crap even if they stole our tech...just a gut feeling since almost 100% of said Chinese military equipment is untested.
I also say that as a consumer who, when buying anything from books to tools to games to appliances, is more often than not disappointed in Chinese quality.
Who knows if their military production is any different?
A lot of "Chinese" military gear (at least with radars, sonar and electronic warfare gear) is what the Chinese buy from European suppliers. I think it is probably reasonably effective but not in general as effective as US equipment plus I would assume we (the US) can buy the same gear and practice against it.
Quote from: MengJiao on February 03, 2023, 10:17:39 AMQuote from: Tripoli on February 03, 2023, 09:53:08 AMQuote from: Sir Slash on February 02, 2023, 11:09:46 PM...
Interested in what everyone thinks the effectiveness of those Diesel-Electric subs the Swedes used to sneak-up on the U.S. Navy Carrier Battlegroup a year or so back would be in this conflict by Taiwan? At the very least it might give Comrade Ping a few additional items to ponder before pulling the trigger. :lifesaver:
There is a lot of background noise in the Taiwan straits, which will make submarines more effective. (Source: The Chinese Invasion Threat, pg. 177). The shallow depths in the straits makes it a challenging, (but not insurmountably so) environment for large submarines. Other hydrographic features, such as deep water SW of Tainan and off the east coast of Taiwan makes this area suitable for SSNs. IMHO, SS/SSKs will excel in the narrow, confined and noisy straits. Against an invasion force, in these confined waters their slow speed will not be a significant disadvantage, and the noisy environment will make them a very significant threat. However, to fully exploit this environment, we will have to do regular training and planning with the Japanese and Taiwanese navy for this scenario.
The recent wargame
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/230109_Cancian_FirstBattle_NextWar.pdf?WdEUwJYWIySMPIr3ivhFolxC_gZQuSOQ
Found that the biggest limitation on the effectiveness of US Subs was that they had to go out of the battle area to get more torpedoes a lot since they tended to use a lot of torpedoes.
Yes. There is a reason the USN is expanding the submarine facilities in Guam.....
So Trip, it sounds like there's a lot of danger of friendly fire in those noisy straits? Or would that not be a problem?
Quote from: Sir Slash on February 03, 2023, 11:48:05 AMSo Trip, it sounds like there's a lot of danger of friendly fire in those noisy straits? Or would that not be a problem?
That would absolutely be a potential problem. Planning and work closely with the Taiwanese and Japanese navies before the war is critical for avoiding "Green on Blue."
Quote from: Tripoli on February 03, 2023, 12:05:41 PMQuote from: Sir Slash on February 03, 2023, 11:48:05 AMSo Trip, it sounds like there's a lot of danger of friendly fire in those noisy straits? Or would that not be a problem?
That would absolutely be a potential problem. Planning and work closely with the Taiwanese and Japanese navies before the war is critical for avoiding "Green on Blue."
Of course, for the Beijingians, it would be red on red, though I guess they could plan a lot and practice a lot to avoid that.
If they're buying gear, rather than building from stolen/retro'd plans, then the gear may be technically effective, but then comes the many questions of deployment and operation of the platforms, starting with personal training at the tip of the spear up through combined arms integration at all levels (from company to army); CCC; tactics, ops, strategy.... Do they even have repair and supply parts, and how much?
Even implementation of design can be fatal, as the stealth fighters on their non-nuclear carrier demonstrate: limited supplies on the carriers due to fuel (and related) requirements, and a choice between flying the fighter or putting weapons on its hardpoints.
At the very least, I fully invite them to march their million-man-armies to Taiwan and see what happens. :ninjameditate: (Army size is meaningless except as a homefront drain, when invading an island: the transport platforms are the necessary constraint.)
Quote from: JasonPratt on February 03, 2023, 12:47:29 PMIf they're buying gear, rather than building from stolen/retro'd plans, then the gear may be technically effective, but then comes the many questions of deployment and operation of the platforms, starting with personal training at the tip of the spear up through combined arms integration at all levels (from company to army); CCC; tactics, ops, strategy.... Do they even have repair and supply parts, and how much?
Even implementation of design can be fatal, as the stealth fighters on their non-nuclear carrier demonstrate: limited supplies on the carriers due to fuel (and related) requirements, and a choice between flying the fighter or putting weapons on its hardpoints.
At the very least, I fully invite them to march their million-man-armies to Taiwan and see what happens. :ninjameditate: (Army size is meaningless except as a homefront drain, when invading an island: the transport platforms are the necessary constraint.)
In all the cases I could find, the radar systems purchased in the 1980s and 1990s have been re-engineered and improved by the Chinese, so I would imagine after 30-40 years their own radars are reasonably functional. These days China seems to export more radars and such than it imports.
'Beijingians' :grin:
Quote from: Sir Slash on February 02, 2023, 11:09:46 PMSorry about your wife's foot Sooner. Hoping she's better soon. Would that be her, 'ass-kicking' foot? If so, better stay on her other side if there's a large cast involved... from personal experience.
Thanks, Slash. She's in a lot less pain than she was when she first broke it (on New Year's Day, no less!), and is pretty much comfortable so long as her foot is up. The foot is healing but the bone hasn't started to mend, so we'll be at least another 4 weeks with no weight bearing so the broken pieces of the bone don't slide apart.
That means FarAway_Dad does pretty much everything that involves an adult having two feet on the ground for another month!
I don't know Jason. A million men holding hands could make one hell of a bridge. :laugh: The Fire Ants in my backyard can do it, so I'd say...comparable.
If the Chinese have figured out how to eliminate corruption from state-funded industries, they'll be the first government in human history to have done so. I do tend to feel like we'll have a higher readiness level, so long as we can keep our eye on the ball.
The presence of the Taiwan Strait is a big challenge for China invading Taiwan. Even bigger than the presence of the Pacific Ocean is for preventing American defeat of China invading Taiwan. But it'd be a near run thing.
It's really hard to evaluate anybody's military until it's in a shooting war. Alarmists on both sides will always cry wolf, cheapskates will always deride the other side, and nobody for sure knows until the bullets start flying.
By that time, a military has already failed in one of its first two main objectives (preventing foreign aggression through deterrence).
Any one used the csis topics to make some CMO scenarios ? Might be really interesting for a play through, I suppose you could find something similar in the workshop.
one question I have about that wargame.
did the chinese team use chinese tactics and strategy or did they adopt more western ideas.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on February 03, 2023, 06:26:28 PMone question I have about that wargame.
did the chinese team use chinese tactics and strategy or did they adopt more western ideas.
THe wargame used 3.5 day turns, so it didn't address tactics, as much as operational/strategic PRC/PLA operations. The game was on the unclassified level. However, there is a lot of information on PLA doctrine that is open source (albeit, you have to read Chinese). However, given the number of iterations they ran, and the various changing conditions, I think they got a pretty good read on the general outlines of the war. See https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/230109_Cancian_FirstBattle_NextWar.pdf?VersionId=WdEUwJYWIySMPIr3ivhFolxC_gZQuSOQ at pg. 44
Page 73, The First Battle of the Next War Operational and Tactical Assumptions: Competence, Weapons, and Infrastructure, leaves me with a LOT of questions.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on February 03, 2023, 07:20:36 PMPage 73, The First Battle of the Next War Operational and Tactical Assumptions: Competence, Weapons, and Infrastructure, leaves me with a LOT of questions.
Yes, amphibious operations are notoriously difficult, and the PLAN has almost zero experience in them under combat conditions, and (IMHO) not enough under training conditions. It could turn into a real $hit show for them. Further, Taiwan is very defense-friendly terrain once you get ashore, which is part of the reason the US went with a Iwo Jima/Ryukyu campaign instead of Taiwan in WWII. With that said, it is wise to plan as if the PLAN could pull it off (albeit at a cost I'm not sure they have seriously begun to grasp). ANd despite some defensive advantages, Taiwan does not have the best trained/best equipped force in the world. Also, there are other options, such as blockade that could move the needle in the PRCs direction.
QuoteWith that said, it is wise to plan as if the PLAN could pull it off
Your pun. I saw it. :ThumbsUp:
Taiwan is a tactically difficult target, and one picked more for political reasons than military ones. Deterring Chinese aggression against Taiwan is important as a first step for building unity in the region, but I'm assuming that, if the Chinese start looking to expand militarily, there are smaller central Asian countries that would prove much easier to invade. Like any of us are even discussing the Chinese annexation and cultural annihilation of Tibet today?
I'll admit, I know next to nothing about that part of the world aside from the country names.
The Chinese have already started expanding militarily by constructing their own islands and bases upon them throughout the Pacific.
Yeah, why invade a country when you can just build a bigger one next door? Makes sense to me.
Quote from: Sir Slash on February 04, 2023, 10:35:32 PMYeah, why invade a country when you can just build a bigger one next door? Makes sense to me.
Why not both?! The advantage to Taiwan is that it has population and an industrial base which China needs. (Also, hookers.)
Quote from: Gusington on February 04, 2023, 02:33:22 PMThe Chinese have already started expanding militarily by constructing their own islands and bases upon them throughout the Pacific.
And claiming territorial water off the coast of Chile, which under the CCP necessarily implies military jurisdiction (to protect their fishing rights or whatever.)
Hahaha 'hookers' :Dreamer:
How much are these Hookers? Asking for a friend.
Depends on the friend asking :tophat:
Quote from: Skoop on February 03, 2023, 05:43:06 PMAny one used the csis topics to make some CMO scenarios ? Might be really interesting for a play through, I suppose you could find something similar in the workshop.
There are balloons (aerostats?) in CMO...so there you go.
Forwarding an Epoch Times article from this morning, filling out some context to that memo leak:
QuoteSeveral former military officials said that the United States could face significant shortfalls if there is ever a conflict with the Chinese regime over Taiwan, coming as U.S. military jets shot down a Chinese spy balloon that drifted across the United States.
"Unfortunately, talking broadly and in overall terms, the Chinese have dramatically increased their air, sea, space, cyber, and missile capabilities in the last couple of decades," James Anderson, acting undersecretary of defense for policy under President Donald Trump, told Fox News.
"In some of the scenarios that could happen, we might well be at a competitive disadvantage initially because they have home-field advantage in terms of their capacity to quickly mobilize local forces," he said, "and that's really important to the [Chinese military]."
Last week, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the new chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives, said the odds of conflict with China over Taiwan "are very high" after a U.S. general released a memo about a potential conflict with the regime in 2025.
Gen. Mike Minihan, who heads the Air Mobility Command, wrote to the leadership of its roughly 110,000 members, saying, "My gut tells me we will fight in 2025."
"I hope he is wrong ... I think he is right, though," McCaul said in an interview last week.
Although the general's views do not represent the Pentagon, it shows concern at the highest levels of the U.S. military over a possible attempt by China to exert control over Taiwan, which Beijing claims as a wayward province. "We're preparing for it and we should," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of the Senate leadership, told news outlets last week in response to a question about a possible U.S.-China conflict. "There are four countries around the world that we watch very carefully in terms of our own security. China is number one."
But those fears were exacerbated after a Chinese spy balloon floated over much of the United States over the past several days before it was shot down off the South Carolina coast by a U.S. F-22 fighter jet. The balloon's presence over the United States, first detected in Montana, prompted Secretary of State Antony Blinken to announce that he's canceling his scheduled trip to China this year.
Meanwhile, the United States hasn't been involved in such a conflict in decades since World War II, it has been noted. A possible conflict would require a large number of warships and aircraft carriers to exert control over the Pacific Ocean.
"The United States hasn't been in such a conflict since 1945 and the casualties would come in a very short period of time. The war game covered three or four weeks," Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told WJAR-TV last week. Such a conflict "really requires a cultural change in the U.S. military," he said.
One issue, Cancian noted, is U.S. industrial production has slipped in recent decades. A large number of U.S.- and Western-based countries have outsourced manufacturing to China and other countries in recent years, according to economists, namely after China entered the World Trade Organization in 2001.
"It certainly is a realistic concern," he told the outlet. "Our inventories are not large and our ability to replace them, the surge capability of our defense industry is not great so that in a long conflict we will risk running out of key munitions and weapons."
Heino Klinck, a senior adviser to the National Bureau of Asian Research, told Fox News on Sunday that it's difficult to predict what could happen.
"There are areas in which they have dominance, and there are also areas in which we have dominance, so it's not exactly an apples and oranges type of comparison," Klinck, who previously served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia before leaving in 2021, told the outlet. "China certainly has geographic advantages just based on the fact that it's only 100 miles from Taiwan, so that's something that requires advanced logistical planning," he added.
Anderson noted that China hasn't conducted a significant military operation in decades. Beijing last fought a conflict with Vietnam in 1979 along the two countries' borders, while the United States has partaken in many conflicts since the end of World War II.
"The fact is they have no experience conducting a major amphibious assault on the scale that would be required to take the island of Taiwan," Anderson told Fox. "Yes, they did attack various outlying islands of Taiwan during multiple crises in the 1950s, but those were very small-scale operations."
He added: "There are no good parallels, and ... from our perspective, the fact that the Chinese don't have a good parallel is good news because this is a competitive disadvantage for them."
interesting source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times
the bit you posted has a lot of 1981 cold war flavor to it.
QuoteThe Epoch Times opposes the Chinese Communist Party,
Well, you know what they say about broken clocks!
Oh come on Star. Everybody knows by now you can manipulate Wikipedia to say anything you want it to. That's a total distortion of what the circulation is and stands for. With all your many sources and videos you pick the most unflattering of all to label it as. Just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean it's wrong and so you have to try to shit all over it. Try a little open-mindedness.
ok
The Falun Gong cult connection is certainly correct. I've been watching them for several years, and they can be very shifty about those connections, although they promote traditional culture of many kinds including western civ. (Basically, whatever communist and other radical socialist regimes have tried to destroy, they promote.)
"Far-right" is a buzzword meant to evoke Nazism. But it's true that they have promoted Trump, including after the election, and have produced docs and given airtime to criticism over the 2020 (and recent 2022) election, as well as balancing out coverage of the Jan6 Capitol riot. They were also the first news agency to be seriously critical of the virus narrative, and things they were censored about in the past on that topic have turned out to be correct, along with more things now being openly discussed across various media types which used to be politically banned from discussion.
Their political coverage is certainly motivated by ongoing persecution by the Chinese Communist Party, and their political slant is definitely highly anti-communist; they have ex-pats from Russia working with them, too. They have not published "pro-Kremlin" content in any form that I've seen. (Maybe that's different in Germany; they tend to adjust content for their audiences.) Despite the claim made in the article, I do see them correct errors promptly (although like many outlets, the note reporting content they've corrected in the article appears at the end of the article.) I'm very suspicious of their Falun Gong connections, so I'm always on the watch for slants along that line; such as, in the past weeks, hosting and promoting the cult leader's "Origin of Humanity" declaration.
I tend to regard them as the old Christian-Science Monitor newspaper: they do good reporting, with sources cited, despite their cult connections. When citing them in the past (including here), I've made a point of bringing up potentially (or even actually) slanted coverage as an alert to watch for, when I thought their material warranted the caution. In this case, they're just consolidating information from other sources, and the report looked neutral enough to me, so I didn't bother.
If the article has a lot of 1981 Cold War flavor to it, so do our own analyses of the China Sea / Taiwan situation in other threads, since much of what's in the article mirrors things we've said ourselves along the way.
Quote from: al_infierno on February 06, 2023, 08:52:49 PMQuoteThe Epoch Times opposes the Chinese Communist Party,
Well, you know what they say about broken clocks!
The CCP tends to smash clocks so it's always time to oppose them? :RockOn:
Still, it's fair to be on the watch for unfair bias against the CCP, too. :peace: