I guess the game is the event here:
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/230109_Cancian_FirstBattle_NextWar.pdf?WdEUwJYWIySMPIr3ivhFolxC_gZQuSOQ
This was covered by a lot of press outlets yesterday in a mild panic.
Quote from: Gusington on January 10, 2023, 08:58:06 AM
This was covered by a lot of press outlets yesterday in a mild panic.
I guess the press panic is sort of the event. What's odd is that the assessment of the 24 runs of various versions of the game isn't as pessimistic as the standard DoD line on a Chinese attack.
I kind of agree with the gamey version of events except that I would say (based on two runs of Next War Vietnam), there's no particular reason to rush into forward airfields or to put it another way,
based on what we've seen in Ukraine, modern wars can be quite cranky and for that matter -- if you were going to attack somewhere, would you really want to have a supply line over the sea
versus the most powerful navy in the world when you have no way to hit them unless they busy themselves messing you up? Or to put it another way -- in Taiwan (as to some degree in Ukraine)
the US is only as exposed as it chooses to be and can choose the time and method of its retaliations.
Quote from: MengJiao on January 10, 2023, 09:23:23 AM
the US is only as exposed as it chooses to be and can choose the time and method of its retaliations.
Not necessarily true at all. The US can choose the time and method of its retaliation, but only in as much as Taiwan holds the line and does not fall or capitulate. I believe in order to have a meaningful impact on the outcome, US direct intervention will be time of the essence.
When I saw this story yesterday the first thing I wondered was 'how much of a paper tiger is the Chinese military?'
Quote from: Gusington on January 10, 2023, 09:32:31 AM
When I saw this story yesterday the first thing I wondered was 'how much of a paper tiger is the Chinese military?'
They fought us to a stalemate in 1953. Much has changed since then (not all of it for the better), but I think the reality of open warfare between the US and China is much the same. The costs of achieving a decisive victory may be too high to justify such a commitment.
I was also thinking of how far ahead of the Russian military is the Chinese military.
If I worked for China, the first thing I would put out there in response to these games is that 'we are not Russia' and 'Taiwan is not Ukraine.'
Just to make it perfectly clear.
Quote from: Gusington on January 10, 2023, 09:32:31 AM
When I saw this story yesterday the first thing I wondered was 'how much of a paper tiger is the Chinese military?'
I'd say not a paper tiger, but not up to taking on the US especially since US forces are not significantly exposed to Chinese conventional weapons
until they enter the war zone and the entire Chinese operational force would be pretty exposed if they went after Taiwan. Or to put it another way,
once they go after Taiwan, the US can hit the whole Chinese force while keeping most of its forces in reserve and building to a crescendo over a period
of 2-4 weeks as things prove advantageous.
Quote from: Gusington on January 10, 2023, 09:52:15 AM
I was also thinking of how far ahead of the Russian military is the Chinese military.
If I worked for China, the first thing I would put out there in response to these games is that 'we are not Russia' and 'Taiwan is not Ukraine.'
Just to make it perfectly clear.
But there are so many problematic variables for China:
1) an amphibious attack versus enemies that are likely to have powerful undetected naval forces capable of arriving at any time from anywhere in the area
2) an amphibious attack versus enemies whose levels of response are unknown
3) an amphibious attack versus enemies who are likely to be able to gain some measure of local air superiority eventually
4) an amphibious attack versus enemies who are likely to have secret agreements with many local powers (eg. Vietnam and Singapore)
5) an amphibious attack wherein the largest navy in the world may take a role against you
And so on. China would face a challenge much greater than just driving across the border from Belarus to take Kyiv and we saw how that turned out.
^All true, but from the Chinese perspective, even if not true, I would put it into Western minds not to expect an easy time defending Taiwan.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would not be a cake walk for the PRC. With that said, neither would it be the "million Man Swim" that it would have been 30 years ago. In fact, the rise of Chinese military capability has been breath-taking. The nearest analogy is the rise of German military power (particularly in their navy) in the 1900-1914 period. WIth that said, I don't think they would win, assuming full US involvement.
Part of my logic is that Amphibious ops are very difficult to execute, and the PLAN has no experience doing anything close to this scale. Plus, Taiwan has some very difficult terrain, which would greatly aid the resistance, if the PLA is not defeated on the beach. With that said, there are a couple of sobering points:
1) The PRC has some good gear, at least on paper
2) The PRC has a lot of the above-mentioned gear
3) Taiwan has neglected and/or been prevented from properly equipping and manning its forces. It is weaker than it should be, and a lot of its equipment is mis-aligned for the threat it faces (for instance, it should be spending more money on mines/anti-access and anti-tank gear than on ASW gear IMHO)
4) A lot depends on the US reaction. If hypothetically, the US makes the political decision to not substantially assist Taiwan, then a blockade will likely suffice for its eventual capitulation. As is appropriate to the nation that birthed Sun Tzu, the PRC is spending a lot of time on "elite capture" to help ensure that the West in general and the US in particular do not come to Taiwan's aid. The are also increasing their nuclear capability to help encourage the view in the US that assisting Taiwan would risk a nuclear exchange.
Good points all. I believe the only nation that would come to Taiwan's assistance directly would be the U.S. Perhaps afterward other countries would help but only if it was obvious the Dragon was losing or unable to win directly. If the U.S. were to be too slow to provide real support or unwilling to confront China directly, then no one else will either and it's game over. The only real question is how much is China willing to pay for taking the island?
I believe China could do much better if they dropped all the threats and belligerence and tried peacefully re-uniting with Taiwan rather than conquering it. A younger generation of both countries would be much more likely to support and approve of this approach. A much easier, 'win' for Ping. My 2 cents.
Quote from: Sir Slash on January 10, 2023, 12:03:37 PM
...
I believe China could do much better if they dropped all the threats and belligerence and tried peacefully re-uniting with Taiwan rather than conquering it. A younger generation of both countries would be much more likely to support and approve of this approach. A much easier, 'win' for Ping. My 2 cents.
While you are correct in this, "a fascist gotta fascist." In other words, a fascist government is going to act like a fascist government. It can't behave any other way. After their suppression of Hong Kong, the PRC lost any capability of pretending that they could peacefully reunite with Taiwan under conditions acceptable to the Taiwanese.
Quote from: Tripoli on January 10, 2023, 12:27:59 PM
Quote from: Sir Slash on January 10, 2023, 12:03:37 PM
...
I believe China could do much better if they dropped all the threats and belligerence and tried peacefully re-uniting with Taiwan rather than conquering it. A younger generation of both countries would be much more likely to support and approve of this approach. A much easier, 'win' for Ping. My 2 cents.
While you are correct in this, "a fascist gotta fascist." In other words, a fascist government is going to act like a fascist government. It can't behave any other way. After their suppression of Hong Kong, the PRC lost any capability of pretending that they could peacefully reunite with Taiwan under conditions acceptable to the Taiwanese.
I think there are a few other macro level wildcards in the mix.
1) China has the capacity for letting nationalism run amok. There is a deep-seated feeling that the world doesn't treat them as they deserve. Kind of like Japan felt before WWII. This occasionally shows up in border disputes or culture war issues with Japan for example. So far the Chinese government has managed to put the genie back in the bottle whenever it sneaks out. But if Xi needs a distraction from domestic troubles, he might just let nationalism fly, and in that case we could see what otherwise seems like irrational behavior.
2) Corruption, past and present is somewhat of an unknown. In the past, China has had a huge problem with it. The Chinese military has even had uncomfortably close relations (and even ownership) of private companies. So I suspect that some of the same sort of corruption issues the Russian military has had to deal with in its war on Ukraine, will plague the Chinese as well. This would mostly show up in the logistics chain. However, unlike Russia, under Xi, the Chinese have had several high profile national efforts to purge corruption. No idea how effective this has been.
I suspect an invasion of Taiwan on March 1st.
I know this because that's the day I fly into Taipei for a 4 hour layover and it's just how my luck rolls.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on January 10, 2023, 02:44:06 PM
I suspect an invasion of Taiwan on March 1st.
I know this because that's the day I fly into Taipei for a 4 hour layover and it's just how my luck rolls.
;D
^Definitely believable.
Quote from: ArizonaTank on January 10, 2023, 02:16:35 PM
Quote from: Tripoli on January 10, 2023, 12:27:59 PM
Quote from: Sir Slash on January 10, 2023, 12:03:37 PM
...
I believe China could do much better if they dropped all the threats and belligerence and tried peacefully re-uniting with Taiwan rather than conquering it. A younger generation of both countries would be much more likely to support and approve of this approach. A much easier, 'win' for Ping. My 2 cents.
While you are correct in this, "a fascist gotta fascist." In other words, a fascist government is going to act like a fascist government. It can't behave any other way. After their suppression of Hong Kong, the PRC lost any capability of pretending that they could peacefully reunite with Taiwan under conditions acceptable to the Taiwanese.
I think there are a few other macro level wildcards in the mix.
1) China has the capacity for letting nationalism run amok. There is a deep-seated feeling that the world doesn't treat them as they deserve. Kind of like Japan felt before WWII. This occasionally shows up in border disputes or culture war issues with Japan for example. So far the Chinese government has managed to put the genie back in the bottle whenever it sneaks out. But if Xi needs a distraction from domestic troubles, he might just let nationalism fly, and in that case we could see what otherwise seems like irrational behavior.
...
I agree that this is a very real danger. If Xi thinks he is loosing the population (most likely because of slowing economic growth) he very well try to retain it by a successful war. The best way to avoid this is to minimize the chances that the war would be successful. IMHO, this is one of the major reasons for the US staying the course in Ukraine, as I believe it is also sending a message to the PRC that such a resort to war may not give Xi the public relations boost he hopes for.
However, there is one problem: If the PRC sees more of the world waking up to their designs, and the "correlation of forces" beginning to go against them, they
may choose to strike while they have the best chance of winning. IMHO, we are entering a dangerous period for at least the next ten years while the west tries to rearm in the face of a global economic slowing, and the PRC is still benefitting from the rearming decisions they made a couple of years ago.
If China is stuck on the idea of their being mistreated by the rest of the world in the past, who's treated them worse than the Russians? I remember vast areas of Russian Territory the Chinese used to claim was theirs originally and taken by the Czars. Is this still the case? Or did they settle this sometime recently?
Quote from: Sir Slash on January 10, 2023, 11:15:47 PM
If China is stuck on the idea of their being mistreated by the rest of the world in the past, who's treated them worse than the Russians? I remember vast areas of Russian Territory the Chinese used to claim was theirs originally and taken by the Czars. Is this still the case? Or did they settle this sometime recently?
My guess is that somewhere in the bowls of the PLAN Headquarters there is an OPLAN for settling this issue. And I would bet that it has been updated after the Russian performance in the Ukraine. I'm
not saying the PRC would execute this plan, as Russia still has a boatload of nukes. However, I'm sure the thought has crossed their mind. With that said, right now Taiwan is the bigger fish to fry, because they have been beating the reunification drum for 70 years and because it breaks them out of the first island chain. Right now, the PRC is getting the raw materials it needs from Russia via peaceful means, so this little border issue can wait for later resolution.
Yeah. Politicians tend to go into major wars of conquest for personal, political reasons more than they do out of a calculating sense of realpolitik.
Trying to predict what's going to happen once the shooting starts is extraordinarily difficult. Trying to predict what's going to happen once the shooting starts in a major amphibious operation between two nations (Taiwan and Japan) whose armies haven't fought a war in 50+ years is even harder. From reading reports, CSIS clearly assumed the active involvement of Japan in this war alongside the US.
It's the amphibious aspect of this operation that undoubtedly gives the Chinese pause. I'm assuming that Chinese air power could neutralize anything better than sporadic AA efforts from Taiwan, but US and Japanese air forces both have hundreds of land-based aircraft in Japan, in addition to however many carriers the US would throw into the fray.
The CSIS outcome seems reasonable: The Chinese invasion fails, but only at an extraordinary cost to Japan and the US. But the only thing for sure in wars is that you can't be sure.
I heard today that Britain and Japan are talking a mutual defence pact thing where they would consider stationing troops in each others countries. That'd be a first for Japan.
in what way would it be a first? British troops?
There were British troops stationed in Japan after Japan's surrender in WW2.
As far as I know, there were never any Japanese troops stationed in great Britain. Plenty in some of of Britain's oversees territories however.
Quote from: Staggerwing on January 12, 2023, 06:34:01 AM
There were British troops stationed in Japan after Japan's surrender in WW2.
As far as I know, there were never any Japanese troops stationed in great Britain. Plenty in some of of Britain's oversees territories however.
This is a huge! China's saber rattling has really brought Japan out of its shell.
Japan has sent small detachments on peace-keeping missions to Cambodia, Sudan and a few other places in the last 20 years. These deployments have always been politically risky in Japan, and often negatively commented on by Japan's neighbors. Memories of WWII have been the largest driving factor keeping the Japanese from flexing any military muscle. In some of the initial deployments, the Japanese troops didn't have weapons and were restricted to logistical support.
I spent some time as a liaison to the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force (GSDF) thirty years ago. From my experience, a strong opposition to overseas deployment was pretty well baked into the SDF's DNA. They did send folks overseas for training, but were always very careful about it.
So I am flabbergasted to see how far Japan has come. Personally, I am happy to see Japan step up. Since WWII Japan has become a strong democracy and one of the US' most steadfast partners.
I agree. A very positive development bound to get Ping's attention. Just out of courosity, where do the Brits base their units now in the Pacific/Asia if anywhere? Anybody know what they have and where it's at? Subs I imagine?
With an invasion, what what would happen with trade? Chinese economy would crumble if the West just pulled everything, just a thought and the CCP could be overthrown
Quote from: Sir Slash on January 12, 2023, 10:47:15 AMI agree. A very positive development bound to get Ping's attention. Just out of courosity, where do the Brits base their units now in the Pacific/Asia if anywhere? Anybody know what they have and where it's at? Subs I imagine?
British overseas disposition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_military_bases_of_the_United_Kingdom)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/United_Kingdom_military_bases_worldwide.png)
Cool. Thanks JH. :beermug[1]:
As AZTank suggested, I think the dramatic thing about this is that the Japanese might be committing to station troops abroad on a permanent basis for the first time in more than 75 years. It'll be interesting to see whether any of those troops serve in combat roles, or if they're just intended to provide logistical support. Even in some of their peacekeeping operations, Japanese troops weren't always armed.
I guess Chinese saber-rattling and North Korean ballistic missile testing have convinced the Japanese to come out of their pacifist shell. We'll see how that evolves, but it's got to be something that China cares about.
Good summary of this week's 135 page CSIS report on wargaming a PRC invasion of Taiwan (in case you don't have time to read the actual report) https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/01/if-china-invades-taiwan-bombers-submarines-and-missiles-dominate/
A shout for GMT Games' Next War: Taiwan boardgame if anyone wants to wargame by themselves.
Their Next War is an excellent rules set, my favorite for any modern and "realistic" gaming.