Possible US / China War

[glenn239]

8 hours ago, sunday said:

Looks like they learnt from the conflict in Ukraine.

Yes, the lesson being that a country should do its business when it is fully ready to kick ass, and China is about 10 more years of military buildup from being in that position.

[Josh]

27 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Yes, the lesson being that a country should do its business when it is fully ready to kick ass, and China is about 10 more years of military buildup from being in that position.

I truly hope so. I do not think China will be in any position to take Taiwan by force in ten years, assuming US involvement. US anti access technologies and programs are proliferating; by the early 2030s I do not think an invasion, or even blockade, will be doable.

[sunday]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Yes, the lesson being that a country should do its business when it is fully ready to kick ass, and China is about 10 more years of military buildup from being in that position.

That also.

[RETAC21]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

I truly hope so. I do not think China will be in any position to take Taiwan by force in ten years, assuming US involvement. US anti access technologies and programs are proliferating; by the early 2030s I do not think an invasion, or even blockade, will be doable.

The point is, this year of unquestionable military superiority is and will be, a moving target. Taiwan will keep on modernizing and devising an asymetrical response to the PRC invasion, so the PRC will still need to modernize even more, and that's another 10 years, but even then, if the Taiwanese feel they are losing the edge and won't count on the US, there's a solution: nuclear weapons. Taiwan had a program in the past and nothing keeps them from restarting it.

[Josh]

44 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

The point is, this year of unquestionable military superiority is and will be, a moving target. Taiwan will keep on modernizing and devising an asymetrical response to the PRC invasion, so the PRC will still need to modernize even more, and that's another 10 years, but even then, if the Taiwanese feel they are losing the edge and won't count on the US, there's a solution: nuclear weapons. Taiwan had a program in the past and nothing keeps them from restarting it.

I think previous assumptions concerning the PRC taking military action assumed that China's economic and military growth would continue unchecked, and I think that is now a questionable assumption. But I think most analysis of PRC vs US strength tend to focus on large, conventional surface units, of which China is clearly out producing the US by a wide margin. But I think the Ukraine campaign against the Black Sea fleet also points to the risks of having to operate your large conventional fleet close to a hostile coast, and Taiwan, the Ryukyu, and even the Batanes might be hostile coasts. Mine warfare and hypersonic missiles also combine to make a sustained conventional surface action - invasion or blockade - potentially prohibitively expensive even for the PLAN.

As for nuclear weapons, if the PRC discovered such a program I think it would go to war immediately, so I do not think that is solution for Taiwan.

[TrustMe]

China's future microwave weapon ...

 

https://asiatimes.com/2024/02/chinas-new-microwave-weapon-made-to-zap-taiwan/

[Strannik]

During last decade USN bought 8.8 TLAMs per ship:

 

[Josh]

I think the Blk IV inventory is still two thousand, minus a couple hundred Blk V conversions. Considering that a ship would have to travel for a week or more to reload, it seems unlikely they need more than they can load and fire a couple times. The inventory is enough for a couple dozen per Aegis ship, and presumably any ship not at sea has them pulled and cross decked with actual deployed vessels or else put into storage for future reloads.

I also suspect that USN tomahawk usage to date is largely Blk 3, all of which are being retired anyway.

[glenn239]

5 hours ago, Josh said:

I think previous assumptions concerning the PRC taking military action assumed that China's economic and military growth would continue unchecked, and I think that is now a questionable assumption.

After 30 years of massive economic growth, China seems long overdue for a corrective recession.   Even so, their "recessions" still look like 3-4% economic growth.

Quote

 But I think most analysis of PRC vs US strength tend to focus on large, conventional surface units, of which China is clearly out producing the US by a wide margin. But I think the Ukraine campaign against the Black Sea fleet also points to the risks of having to operate your large conventional fleet close to a hostile coast, and Taiwan, the Ryukyu, and even the Batanes might be hostile coasts.

I think both the US and China are over-invested in heavier tonnage naval platforms.

Quote

Mine warfare and hypersonic missiles also combine to make a sustained conventional surface action - invasion or blockade - potentially prohibitively expensive even for the PLAN.

The easiest way around this problem is to build huge numbers of smaller landing craft.  The Allies built about 25,000 during WW2.  Why can't China build more given that it's economy is much larger?

 

[Josh]

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

After 30 years of massive economic growth, China seems long overdue for a corrective recession.   Even so, their "recessions" still look like 3-4% economic growth.

That still puts them close to the current US growth rate, which is rough parity. IE, they are not going to dramatically overtake the US economically, even assuming they can address their current headwinds.

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I think both the US and China are over-invested in heavier tonnage naval platforms.

Actually I rather agree on that. Though in the case of the PRC, if they really want to take Taiwan they need an amphib force to do it and a large AD capable surface force to protect it. They are more stuck to a surface force than the US, in that regard.

 

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The easiest way around this problem is to build huge numbers of smaller landing craft.  The Allies built about 25,000 during WW2.  Why can't China build more given that it's economy is much larger?

 

They can, but as I have pointed out before, the allies didn't just build a lot of small landing craft: they created two entire mobile harbors and had hundreds of tank landing ships, and numerous underwater pipelines, on top of taking harbors intact and unloading in said harbors. A bunch of short ranged boats is not going to produce the throughput of a Normandy level landing, and a Taiwan invasion is a Normandy level effort, if we assume the Taiwanese resist. And I think if the US is in the war, then the chances of open ended resistance are decent. At a minimum, you do not bet your invasion on good intensions, so we have seen.

[ink]

China would be foolish to invade Taiwan for exactly the same reasons the Russians were foolish to invade Ukraine. Except the waiting game is even more in China's favour than it was for the Russians. Who's to say that a generation from now Taiwan won't be even closer to China simply through peaceful means? No assimilation is even necessary is economic ties (and cultural ties) become even closer. And neither will Taiwanese democracy threaten China if living standards continue to improve. Besides, democracy leaves plenty of room for foreign interference (which China could also use to play a smart, long game).

Well, let's see if the Chinese are smarter than the Russians. They definitely have more room to be so.

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, ink said:

China would be foolish to invade Taiwan for exactly the same reasons the Russians were foolish to invade Ukraine. Except the waiting game is even more in China's favour than it was for the Russians. Who's to say that a generation from now Taiwan won't be even closer to China simply through peaceful means? No assimilation is even necessary is economic ties (and cultural ties) become even closer. And neither will Taiwanese democracy threaten China if living standards continue to improve. Besides, democracy leaves plenty of room for foreign interference (which China could also use to play a smart, long game).

Well, let's see if the Chinese are smarter than the Russians. They definitely have more room to be so.

Not necessarily, it looks like China will get old before it gets rich. Projections are 700-800 million population by 2100, with a rather bad age structure, but the effects of their demographic crisis may hit them hard, maybe even within a decade. 

Sure, Japan, Worst Korea and Taiwan have similar demographic problem, but they are already rich. 

[Josh]

5 hours ago, ink said:

China would be foolish to invade Taiwan for exactly the same reasons the Russians were foolish to invade Ukraine. Except the waiting game is even more in China's favour than it was for the Russians. Who's to say that a generation from now Taiwan won't be even closer to China simply through peaceful means? No assimilation is even necessary is economic ties (and cultural ties) become even closer. And neither will Taiwanese democracy threaten China if living standards continue to improve. Besides, democracy leaves plenty of room for foreign interference (which China could also use to play a smart, long game).

Well, let's see if the Chinese are smarter than the Russians. They definitely have more room to be so.

Taiwan is if anything culturally growing apart from China, according to most surveys. And the Hong Kong crackdown basically ended peaceful unification as a politically acceptable option for the population. IMO, the status quo endures indefinitely unless there is a war.

[futon]

5 hours ago, ink said:

China would be foolish to invade Taiwan for exactly the same reasons the Russians were foolish to invade Ukraine. Except the waiting game is even more in China's favour than it was for the Russians. Who's to say that a generation from now Taiwan won't be even closer to China simply through peaceful means? No assimilation is even necessary is economic ties (and cultural ties) become even closer. And neither will Taiwanese democracy threaten China if living standards continue to improve. Besides, democracy leaves plenty of room for foreign interference (which China could also use to play a smart, long game).

Well, let's see if the Chinese are smarter than the Russians. They definitely have more room to be so.

If China starts placing more value in Wang Jingwei.. so maybe in a sort of cordial trilateral historical respects paying for the three factions.. CCP, CKS's KMT, and Wang's KMT..  then they may also be able to make a place like this one that's in Taiwan, and thus be more similar to Taiwan?  https://japan-forward.com/shinzo-abe-statue-is-also-a-tribute-to-bilateral-relations-with-taiwan/amp/

 

Edited February 14 by futon

[Strannik]

Current China's growth rates of 4% could be seen close to US one on paper, but their inflation is zero to negative vs US 3++%, so not a parity. 

Edited February 14 by Strannik

[Strannik]

Speaking of Korean birth rates: NK: 1.79 vs SK: 0.78 - does it mean SK will start the war soon?  

[urbanoid]

SK is satisfied with status quo, so...

[glenn239]

12 hours ago, Josh said:

That still puts them close to the current US growth rate, which is rough parity. IE, they are not going to dramatically overtake the US economically, even assuming they can address their current headwinds.

Once the Chinese are through their recessionary period, I presume that they'll again accelerate to 6-8% growth.

Quote

They can, but as I have pointed out before, the allies didn't just build a lot of small landing craft: they created two entire mobile harbors and had hundreds of tank landing ships, and numerous underwater pipelines, on top of taking harbors intact and unloading in said harbors.

The army the Allies were taking on in France was much bigger than anything Taiwan and friends can field in Taiwan.

 

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, Strannik said:

Current China's growth rates of 4% could be seen close to US one on paper, but their inflation is zero to negative vs US 3++%, so not a parity. 

I'd also like to see how much of US annual GDP goes into corporate overseas accounts and never returns to American shores. 

[Josh]

9 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Once the Chinese are through their recessionary period, I presume that they'll again accelerate to 6-8% growth.

First of all, I do not particularly trust Chinese economic numbers to begin with. But even assuming they are accurate, I still do not see it. The property market and infrastructure projects have been done to death, to the point that China literally has too much of both. Property is estimated to be something like 25% of GDP and over half of household investment/savings. But now China has enough empty/excess property to literally house the population of France. That is not a problem that is just a temporary recession. I think they drop down to more normal (for lack of a better word) growth levels at best. This is the pattern we've seen in all the Asian tigers previously - rapid growth for decades that starts to slow once economic policy has harvested all the low hanging fruit. But there also is the possibility that they fall into a deflationary trap, which IMO seems almost likely without a larger effort on the part of the central government. There is a lack of consumer confidence which is slowing down domestic consumption, just when foreign demand is also down.

We shall see.
 

9 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The army the Allies were taking on in France was much bigger than anything Taiwan and friends can field in Taiwan.

"In wave after wave of thousands of landing ships, more than 156,000 Allied infantrymen stormed the five beaches."

https://www.history.com/news/d-day-normandy-wwii-facts

So no, not really. Taiwan has over 100,000 regulars and reserves on top of that; taking the island is very much Normandy in scale.

[Strannik]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I'd also like to see how much of US annual GDP goes into corporate overseas accounts and never returns to American shores. 

That's  accounting, but the bigger issue for the US is the fact that China has a much higher % of GDP in real production. Vs "services" and financial shenanigans.

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

So no, not really. Taiwan has over 100,000 regulars and reserves on top of that; taking the island is very much Normandy in scale.

The German army in France I think was about 1.5 million strong.

[Josh]

14 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The German army in France I think was about 1.5 million strong.

Taiwanese reserves are of that magnitude. Wiki says around 200,000 active (I am guessing that is all branches, I was pretty sure active army was like ~110k) and two million reserves (again most likely an all services number, but presumably the bulk is army).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_Armed_Forces

ETA: I'm not arguing it is an exact parallel, but that the two operations would be roughly the same order of magnitude in logistical movement, given sustained Taiwanese resistance. The distances involved are also similar.

Edited February 15 by Josh

[Josh]

15 hours ago, Strannik said:

That's  accounting, but the bigger issue for the US is the fact that China has a much higher % of GDP in real production. Vs "services" and financial shenanigans.

For war production purposes, that is a problem. For political purposes, economic growth is economic growth, even if a lot of US growth is service industry based. China will be a production hub that the US cannot match indefinitely. China's total economic growth however is tied its political will to spend on its army or sustain a war. Nothing prevents China from following the Russian model of simply spending more of its government budget on military production at the expense of other services and liquid finances, however that puts undesirable domestic political pressure on Beijing and has long term economic costs. Witness the thaw in relations between the PRC and US in the last year - I would guess that economic difficulties at home moderated the foreign policy, though Chinese politics are extremely opaque by design.

Edited February 15 by Josh

[RETAC21]

When USians do not want to solve "other peoples problems", these problems come knocking:

 

Edited February 15 by RETAC21