Josh Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 (edited) 10 hours ago, glenn239 said: The core issue is that up until this time China has been in an R&D development cycle moreso than attempting to radically expand its military. But now, President Xi calls for new progress in military equipment (tribune.com.pk) Xi has just called for the Chinese economy to start building a first-class military with advanced weapons system, so the arms race is now on. Biden's gaffed badly in a CNN town hall the other night and stated outright that the US would defend Taiwan. The White House tried to walk it back the next day to the "maybe we will, maybe we won't" bullshit, but nobody believes it. If the US defends Taiwan, then they are on a collision course with China, it will be war. Any jingo or twat that thinks that China will be deterred by this is fucking dillusional. If the US gets between China and Taiwan, then the US will be in a war in which the stakes are the total annihilation of its ability to project power outside the Americas. But the war will start out after China has completed a massive arms production program, not before. IMO. China has been on a steady weapons modernization path for decades. Not sure why you think anything changed. As for Biden's gaff, honestly I'm all for the US coming right out and saying it to remove any ambiguity. Probably wasn't his intention to change policy given the walk back, so I assume it was truly a gaff, but I've no problem with the sentiment. As for "the total annihilation of its ability to project power outside the Americas", that seems many decades off and assumes that the Chinese economy continues to expand at historical rates...which seems rather unlikely no matter what numbers you believe or which economist you talk to. They've used credit to pump the GDP hard, especially since 2008, and they have all but exhausted that as a growth mechanism. They will have to accept economic growth at a more Western level going forward, assuming their massive housing bubble can be deflated in an orderly way. They have gotten to the point that they can probably inflict heavy casualties on the US into the first island chain , while themselves likely suffering similar casualties. That is the equivalent of the US being able to defend the Caribbean. That's big hill they are climbing. Edited October 28, 2021 by Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, glenn239 said: The issue is not that the US is behind in hypersonic technology. The issue is that hypersonic technology itself is undermining the US model of global security. There is no collective security to be had in a hypersonic shooting gallery, and without a credible ability to offer security, the US system cannot endure. The Chinese are just as vulnerable to hypersonic weapons, if not more so. If you're argument is that defense against them will alter conflicts from being offensive/defense to being strictly offense with deterrence or attrition as the result, I won't bother arguing with that (though I would suspect defense measures will be in the offing in the future). But in that world of equal opportunity hypersonics, the country with the larger number of long ranged deployment platforms for said hypersonics and a global system of bases to deploy them from wins the game. The Chinese might be able to de-orbit hypersonics anywhere in the world in the future, but they will do so using a three stage heavy lifter to do it. The US can fly a B-52 to within range of the Chinese coast without refueling* from anywhere west of Hawaii (inclusive) or anywhere in Australia, and the hypersonics it carries will likely be barely more costly than a standard cruise missile. So the US ability to saturate China with gliders or scramjets, even in an economically weaker position, is going to be greater than than the PRC up until the day the PRC has a global network of bases roughly equivalent with the US. If they get that far, I agree the US will be stuck in their own hemisphere. But I highly doubt they will get that far without issues coming to a head first. * Starting mid to late decade, their range will extend a further 25-30%. Edited October 28, 2021 by Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 About hypersonics, it was the USA that first flew a self powered (as opposed to something like an projectile from a barrelled gun) hypersonic platform, 62 years ago. That was the X-15, and I am sure that if the US wanted to dust off those plans, give the vehicle modern electronics, GPS guidance or other homing guidance, and build it out of stealth materials it could do that. Sure, it would not be easy, but the USA has the experience and the basic data that no one else in the world has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 The narrative is that China says (or even believes) that it will be ready for war in Taiwan by 2025. The narrative I keep hearing repeated (im not clear if this is what is being said in China, or just judged by defence analysts) is 'Taiwan in 2025, Phillipines in 2050'. Its not Bidens statement that has caused the problem. This has been growing in concern ever since that cluess fucker Xi became President. It is however, a very useful excuse for the useful idiots to blame the US for the problem. China wants Formosa, it will get Formosa, whatever it has to do. At this point, If I was the US, Id just plonk an F22 base on the place and be done with it. It wouldnt do anymore harm, and it may actually focus minds in China from the circlejerk its currently enjoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 11 hours ago, Nobu said: Interesting, and one hopes that the chapter on how not to send incorrect signals such as these may have been read by the State Department. In 2 words: iraq 1990 The same mistake over and over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 I struggle to think of a crisis in the past 40 years we successfully predicted and conducted an effective policy to forestall it. In a sense that may be because we are only seeing the failures, not where it worked. The cynic in me things its only ever worked through luck, not through any kind of particular judgement. Both the Cuban Missile Crisis and Able Archer fit in that mould. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: I struggle to think of a crisis in the past 40 years we successfully predicted and conducted an effective policy to forestall it. In a sense that may be because we are only seeing the failures, not where it worked. The cynic in me things its only ever worked through luck, not through any kind of particular judgement. Both the Cuban Missile Crisis and Able Archer fit in that mould. Because if it was forestalled it didn't became a crisis, evidently. There are plenty of successful interventions that don't make the papers because they don't become newsworthy. Speaking of the Falklands, Argentina made noises in the mid-70s, HMS Dreadnought was sent South and the noises stopped. Pertinent in this thread because it shows the value of deterrence, which is the driver behind the Aussie acquisition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn239 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, Josh said: China has been on a steady weapons modernization path for decades. Not sure why you think anything changed. As for Biden's gaff, honestly I'm all for the US coming right out and saying it to remove any ambiguity. Probably wasn't his intention to change policy given the walk back, so I assume it was truly a gaff, but I've no problem with the sentiment. If you're all for the US formally committing to the defense of Taiwan forever, then you do not understand the problem. Quote As for "the total annihilation of its ability to project power outside the Americas", that seems many decades off and assumes that the Chinese economy continues to expand at historical rates It's at least a decade off, yes. What, you're thinking that the US should guarantee the independence of Taiwan, but just for the next 10 years, and then pull back if and when the military situation becomes hopeless? The Chinese economy does not have to continue to expand at historical rates in order for China to win an arms race. Your economy is in serious trouble due to Covid mismanagement and your government is printing money to hide the problem. Your armed forces are in chaos because you voted in a president that thinks progressive issues and vaccines are more important than unit moral or fighting capacity. Your production industry is a joke. How are you going to win an arms race with China? Quote They have gotten to the point that they can probably inflict heavy casualties on the US into the first island chain , while themselves likely suffering similar casualties. That is the equivalent of the US being able to defend the Caribbean. That's big hill they are climbing. The stakes of what you are proposing. If the US formally commits to defending Taiwan then they are on a collision course for war with China in which the outcome will determine the future of Asia. If and when the US loses an arms race, let's say 10 years from now, then they will be in the unenviable position of either denouncing their alliance with Taiwan, or entering into a war they will certainly lose and cannot contain. OTOH, if the US wins the arms race, then this, and not a formal alliance, guarantees the security of Taiwan. Either way, a formal guarantee does not make sense for the US. Edited October 28, 2021 by glenn239 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 Yes, but as Able Archer demonstrated, how many crises did we nearly stumble into, and never even heard about? An interesting one was the original Quemoy crisis, where Eisenhower was on the brink of using atomic weapons on China, due to their increasingly aggressive behaviour. He demurred at the last minute, but as we have learned from Daniel Ellsberg, he seems to have given a letter to the commander of the US 7th Fleet devolving nuclear use authority. And seemingly never told the state department or Department of Defense about it. https://www.ellsberg.net/quemoy/ The interesting thing behind all this, we only learned after the cold war that Khruschev had decided to use nuclear weapons in the event America used them in China. so we avoided a possible nuclear war largely by accident, with neither side realising how close it came. I agree entirely, deterrence is the right response, and we need to be careful sending messages about Taiwan to reinforce that end. I also reject Glenn's hysteria saying anything we might do could be dangerous, better not do anything. But we also need to face up to the problem we don't fully understand crises. It's riding a Tiger, we don't grasp the Conflicts we avoided by luck, and even the ones we do know, such as Cuba, seem to have been resolved as much by a throw of the dice as smart diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn239 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 12 hours ago, Josh said: The Chinese are just as vulnerable to hypersonic weapons, if not more so. If you're argument is that defense against them will alter conflicts from being offensive/defense to being strictly offense with deterrence or attrition as the result, I won't bother arguing with that (though I would suspect defense measures will be in the offing in the future). The argument is that the Chinese position in Asia rests on the fact that 1.5 billion Chinese live there, while the US position in Asia rests solely on the willingness of other countries to allow US forces to base there. The US position in Asia is therefore considerably more brittle than the Chinese position in Asia inherently. Hypersonics do not impact this problem symmetrically, because the fact that they cannot be defended against makes US allies more unwilling to become ducks in a shooting gallery, and that means that the US will be increasingly unable to project power into the region. Hypersonics favor Russia and China, the local land powers, and disfavor the US, the global naval power. That's why the US got behind in the field and her rivals pressed ahead - the US has nothing to gain from a hypersonics arms race because it undermines its best cards, its air force and its navy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn239 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: China wants Formosa, it will get Formosa, whatever it has to do. At this point, If I was the US, Id just plonk an F22 base on the place and be done with it. It wouldnt do anymore harm, and it may actually focus minds in China from the circlejerk its currently enjoying. One of the great what ifs is, what if the US and China in 1950 had agreed to swap problems? That is, the US Navy pulls back from Taiwan and lets the Chinese invade, and the Chinese army pulls back from North Korea and let's the US unify the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 The US position in Asia if anything is stronger, because China has no allies and the US does. They need the US. Even Vietnam now seems to have a closer relationship with the US than China. Besides, if you are going to count every Chinese that can carry a rifle, I'm going to only count how many that can swim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn239 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Besides, if you are going to count every Chinese that can carry a rifle, I'm going to only count how many that can swim. Wont' be too long we'll be counting the robotic infantry fighting units that can swim. Or hell, walk across the bottom of the Straights of Taiwan for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 Or Siebel ferries equipped with ICBM hypersonic weapons even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim the Tank Nut Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 this entire thread reminds me of Patton's musings on weapons: "When Samson took the fresh jawbone of an ass and slew a thousand men therewith, he probable started a vogue for the weapon, particularly among the Philistines..." The difficulty about being concerned with a single class of weapon that "changes everything" is that it seldom turns out to be true. Simply stopping trade between China and the Unites States represents a substantial alteration of the world as we know it. The Chinese have as much to lose as anyone. Xi believes that China can be entirely self sustaining and that isn't likely to be the case. While it would be very difficult for the United States it would at least be possible. If there is a war it will very likely spin out of control very quickly. The last nation that tried a decapitation strike on the USN ended up with an unhealthy glow that still makes Geiger counters twinkle today. I rather suspect that is probable the end result if a similar attempt is made today. Sinking the core ships of the Pacific and Atlantic fleets will make a conventional resolution unlikely because the Chinese feel as if they can not back down under any circumstances. If cooler heads prevail then so be it. If they do not prevail the economic dislocation is going to make the military casualties insignificant even if every service member on both sides is killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn239 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: The difficulty about being concerned with a single class of weapon that "changes everything" is that it seldom turns out to be true. The problem is not one weapons system, it's the look of the entire chess board going forward. Here, Senior US general warns China's military progress is 'stunning' as US is hampered by 'brutal' bureaucracy - CNNPolitics In the wake of China's test of a hypersonic missile, the second most senior US general said Thursday that the pace at which China's military is developing capabilities is "stunning" while US development suffers from "brutal" bureaucracy. Currently and for the near future, the US is #1, but the pace of Chinese progress is across the whole spectrum, "The Chinese military capabilities are much greater than that" single test, Milley told Bloomberg News. "They're expanding rapidly in space, in cyber and then in the traditional domains of land, sea and air." Quote If there is a war it will very likely spin out of control very quickly. The last nation that tried a decapitation strike on the USN ended up with an unhealthy glow that still makes Geiger counters twinkle today. There's two basic problems with this type of toughy tough talky talk. First, pissing around in Asia is a luxury for the United States. They don't need to be there. They can return to the Americas and leave Asia to the Asians, and be just fine for the next 100 years. Second, if countries are exchanging body blows, the point at which a country might consider a blood debt paid is when they've put as many of the other side in the grave as they've taken. Every time, one for one. The problem with the symmetry of that is that there are 1.5 billion of them and 330 million of you. The US will be starting to think about whether they really need Asia at a level of casualties where the Chinese are just warming up. Edited October 28, 2021 by glenn239 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim the Tank Nut Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 clearly I've misunderstood. Earlier in the thread I thought part of the discussion was that the Chinese could theoretically launch a hyper-sonic attack aimed at taking out four or so USN carriers at sea. The idea that this style of beginning of a conflict would maintain a conventional only war seems ludicrous to me. If that type of surprise attack against the USN wasn't being contemplated in this thread then I obviously got confused. Big, nasty, horrible wars are ALWAYS the result of misjudgement and miscalculation. The Warsaw Pact and NATO allies were all mature enough and had recently been through a big terrible war that despite everything we managed to survive Cold War 1.0; if there is anything that is yet to be determined it is that China will or will not prove to be mature enough to make the calculation that a limited war will get out of control very quickly. Surely you aren't positing that the US would first strike against China? That too seems unlikely to the point of parody. China wants what it wants and like so many undisciplined children cries when it doesn't get what it wants. Chinese pronouncements aren't terrible far from what North Korea puts out. "Running dogs of the capitalist West" and all that sort of thing. That's why I have a hard time taking China seriously. It isn't that they aren't dangerous because after all when you are willing to "part out" your own citizens because of their religious views then moral reckoning isn't an issue but I'm not sure that China can kill enough of their own to feed the rest if the US is sufficiently provoked to fight a total war. And Pearl Harbor writ large will be a sufficient provocation in my estimation. China's new toy best be deployed in a manner other than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 22 hours ago, RETAC21 said: In 2 words: iraq 1990 The same mistake over and over Agreed. The US should make its position crystal clear, and that is (and Biden let it slip) the US won't allow Taiwan to be part of China, unless Taiwan itself votes itself into China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 17 hours ago, glenn239 said: If you're all for the US formally committing to the defense of Taiwan forever, then you do not understand the problem. It's at least a decade off, yes. What, you're thinking that the US should guarantee the independence of Taiwan, but just for the next 10 years, and then pull back if and when the military situation becomes hopeless? The Chinese economy does not have to continue to expand at historical rates in order for China to win an arms race. Your economy is in serious trouble due to Covid mismanagement and your government is printing money to hide the problem. Your armed forces are in chaos because you voted in a president that thinks progressive issues and vaccines are more important than unit moral or fighting capacity. Your production industry is a joke. How are you going to win an arms race with China? The stakes of what you are proposing. If the US formally commits to defending Taiwan then they are on a collision course for war with China in which the outcome will determine the future of Asia. If and when the US loses an arms race, let's say 10 years from now, then they will be in the unenviable position of either denouncing their alliance with Taiwan, or entering into a war they will certainly lose and cannot contain. OTOH, if the US wins the arms race, then this, and not a formal alliance, guarantees the security of Taiwan. Either way, a formal guarantee does not make sense for the US. I'm not bothering to engage with all of the above. I'll just ask: who do you want to win? Which, I assume, is China. I will then ask, 'why'? And I have no idea. And then I will say that if that is the horse you're hitched to you are going to be disappointed. The US is definitely in a bad place specifically because of Trump. And I think the US will be in a bad place in 2024 unless he dies before then. But where is China going to be when Xi leaves? China made an entire succession process after Mao, because having a Mao killed literally tens of millions of people. So they made a plan that was almost US presidential in its form succession, minus the voting. So, now Xi. I hope he doesn't drop the ball, because the entire Chinese system of government is now resting on one man. Nothing can go wrong with that. As a supposed "Canadian", what is your preferred form of government? Do tell what the optimal situation is, and why you look forward to your largest trading partner falling and you having to learning Mandarin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 17 hours ago, glenn239 said: The argument is that the Chinese position in Asia rests on the fact that 1.5 billion Chinese live there, while the US position in Asia rests solely on the willingness of other countries to allow US forces to base there. The US position in Asia is therefore considerably more brittle than the Chinese position in Asia inherently. Hypersonics do not impact this problem symmetrically, because the fact that they cannot be defended against makes US allies more unwilling to become ducks in a shooting gallery, and that means that the US will be increasingly unable to project power into the region. Hypersonics favor Russia and China, the local land powers, and disfavor the US, the global naval power. That's why the US got behind in the field and her rivals pressed ahead - the US has nothing to gain from a hypersonics arms race because it undermines its best cards, its air force and its navy. There's just as many Indians and they have the Bramos missile. I guess the US should just give up? The US will be able to deploy more and cheaper hypersonics than its enemies in 3-5 years. If China wants to fight before then, by your own posts, they will lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 8 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: clearly I've misunderstood. Earlier in the thread I thought part of the discussion was that the Chinese could theoretically launch a hyper-sonic attack aimed at taking out four or so USN carriers at sea. The idea that this style of beginning of a conflict would maintain a conventional only war seems ludicrous to me. If that type of surprise attack against the USN wasn't being contemplated in this thread then I obviously got confused. Big, nasty, horrible wars are ALWAYS the result of misjudgement and miscalculation. The Warsaw Pact and NATO allies were all mature enough and had recently been through a big terrible war that despite everything we managed to survive Cold War 1.0; if there is anything that is yet to be determined it is that China will or will not prove to be mature enough to make the calculation that a limited war will get out of control very quickly. Surely you aren't positing that the US would first strike against China? That too seems unlikely to the point of parody. China wants what it wants and like so many undisciplined children cries when it doesn't get what it wants. Chinese pronouncements aren't terrible far from what North Korea puts out. "Running dogs of the capitalist West" and all that sort of thing. That's why I have a hard time taking China seriously. It isn't that they aren't dangerous because after all when you are willing to "part out" your own citizens because of their religious views then moral reckoning isn't an issue but I'm not sure that China can kill enough of their own to feed the rest if the US is sufficiently provoked to fight a total war. And Pearl Harbor writ large will be a sufficient provocation in my estimation. China's new toy best be deployed in a manner other than that. Those are some good points Tim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futon Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 4 hours ago, Josh said: I'm not bothering to engage with all of the above. I'll just ask: who do you want to win? Which, I assume, is China. I will then ask, 'why'? And I have no idea. And then I will say that if that is the horse you're hitched to you are going to be disappointed. The US is definitely in a bad place specifically because of Trump. And I think the US will be in a bad place in 2024 unless he dies before then. But where is China going to be when Xi leaves? China made an entire succession process after Mao, because having a Mao killed literally tens of millions of people. So they made a plan that was almost US presidential in its form succession, minus the voting. So, now Xi. I hope he doesn't drop the ball, because the entire Chinese system of government is now resting on one man. Nothing can go wrong with that. As a supposed "Canadian", what is your preferred form of government? Do tell what the optimal situation is, and why you look forward to your largest trading partner falling and you having to learning Mandarin? To the underlined bold spot in what is a solid post overall. As far as East Asia goes.. Japan, ROK, DPRK, Taiwan, and China.. Trump was not that bad. To pin such a degree of blame on him for the US position in regards to Asia creates an uncessary partisan narrative competition choice between two polorized politic points in the US for countries in this region. The US position today in regards to China was really 20 years in the making. You had a strong post. But to say that took the buttresses off. Now it fell apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futon Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 16 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: this entire thread reminds me of Patton's musings on weapons: "When Samson took the fresh jawbone of an ass and slew a thousand men therewith, he probable started a vogue for the weapon, particularly among the Philistines..." The difficulty about being concerned with a single class of weapon that "changes everything" is that it seldom turns out to be true. Simply stopping trade between China and the Unites States represents a substantial alteration of the world as we know it. The Chinese have as much to lose as anyone. Xi believes that China can be entirely self sustaining and that isn't likely to be the case. While it would be very difficult for the United States it would at least be possible. If there is a war it will very likely spin out of control very quickly. The last nation that tried a decapitation strike on the USN ended up with an unhealthy glow that still makes Geiger counters twinkle today. I rather suspect that is probable the end result if a similar attempt is made today. Sinking the core ships of the Pacific and Atlantic fleets will make a conventional resolution unlikely because the Chinese feel as if they can not back down under any circumstances. If cooler heads prevail then so be it. If they do not prevail the economic dislocation is going to make the military casualties insignificant even if every service member on both sides is killed. That "decapitation strike" occured on a military facility on colonized Hawaii triggered by a policy (survival of Nationalist Chinese and oil embargo) that extended the head of that neck to the western Pacific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futon Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 Things be much easier if there wasn't so many BS narratives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn239 Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 6 hours ago, Josh said: There's just as many Indians and they have the Bramos missile. I guess the US should just give up? No, at this point the only thing the US should do is not get into a formal assurance of any sort with Taiwan. Everything else can hang fire. Quote The US will be able to deploy more and cheaper hypersonics than its enemies in 3-5 years. If China wants to fight before then, by your own posts, they will lose China will outstrip the US in all forms of military production going forward, including hypersonics. Most of the US supply base will be in North America, making the imbalance in Asia even more stark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now