Possible US / China War

[glenn239]

5 minutes ago, Josh said:

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

It's 5,600nm from Taiwan to the supply ports in California.  Everything will need to be supplied by sea through a Sino-Russian naval blockade.  There are 23.5 million people on Taiwan.   They will require about 5 lbs per person per day, absolute minimum.  That's 60,000 TONS of supplies A DAY, much of it having to cross 5,600nm of sea through H-20's and Russian nuclear hunter killer subs, the last 500 miles a shooting gallery of land and air launched anti-ship missiles, missile boats, diesel submarines, and hunting mines and drones. If they get through that they have to try to offload under Chinese drone and satellite surveillance in heavily mined, damaged, and interdicted ports on Taiwan, easily within range of Chinese land based missiles and drones.   

Now, in this obviously already difficult supply situation, the idea that the Taiwanese can somehow field an army of 1.5 million troops that will require about another 20,000 tons of supply a day on top of the 60,000 tons that they are not going to get?  They'll need 80,000 tons a day, they'll be lucky to be getting 5,000 tons a day.

Given the impossibility of these basic numbers, I wonder if the real American Taiwan policy is more cynical in nature.  It's called a poison pill.  Washington and Taipei know they can't supply Taiwan through a blockade.   But what they can try to do is make sure that Taiwan is a ruined hulk of a mess if the Chinese take over.  Like with Ukraine.   Beijing seems to understand the situation perfectly, and seeks a solution where they get what they want without Taiwan being ruined in the process.

[futon]

On mention of Palau.. dated August last year.

BANGKOK--The United States has signed a new agreement with Palau, which gives American ships the authorization to unilaterally enforce maritime regulations in the tiny Pacific island nation’s exclusive economic zone, the U.S. Coast Guard said Tuesday.

The agreement comes as both the U.S. and China are seeking to expand their influence in the Pacific and follows pleas from Palau’s president for Washington’s help to deter Beijing’s “unwanted activities” in its coastal waters.

In the agreement, concluded a week ago, U.S. Coast Guard ships can enforce regulations inside Palau’s exclusive economic zone on behalf of the nation without a Palauan officer present, the Coast Guard said in a statement.

...

https://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/14993144

 

Edited February 15, 2024 by futon

[Josh]

50 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

It's 5,600nm from Taiwan to the supply ports in California.  Everything will need to be supplied by sea through a Sino-Russian naval blockade.  There are 23.5 million people on Taiwan.   They will require about 5 lbs per person per day, absolute minimum.  That's 60,000 TONS of supplies A DAY, much of it having to cross 5,600nm of sea through H-20's and Russian nuclear hunter killer subs, the last 500 miles a shooting gallery of land and air launched anti-ship missiles, missile boats, diesel submarines, and hunting mines and drones. If they get through that they have to try to offload under Chinese drone and satellite surveillance in heavily mined, damaged, and interdicted ports on Taiwan, easily within range of Chinese land based missiles and drones.

This assumes Taiwan has no food stored or produced locally, but yes at some point supplying Taiwan does become a problem. Blockading the island might be a more attractive method of coercion then outright invasion. If China insists on a drawn out blockade campaign, either as the default or as the backup when an invasion fails, the US will eventually have to start attacking targets in mainland China to break such a blockade. Messy to be sure.

But also you can flip the problem the other way: China has a very similar problem if it invades. It is physically much closer, but it has to delivery a monumentally larger amount of material per day. Any unloading will be within view of commercial or military satellites, or even the mountainous interior of the island. Even assuming tactical aircraft, AShMs, and local short ranged ballistic missiles are suppressed, long range fires can easily still play hell with ships in port. Flight time of a Tomahawk from a thousand miles away: two hours. Flight time of a LRHW from Guam: <30 minutes.

Russia is not getting into a war with the US for the sake of China. Its SSN/SSGN force is fairly small and represents their single greatest military advantage; they are not going to go toe to toe with arguably superior USN nuke boats and getting into a shooting war with a major nuclear power just to save China's ass.

I will worry about H-20s when I see one. The Chinese have never designed a bomber from scratch, let alone an intercontinental stealth example, and they still use Russian engines on their H-6s. I know the PRC's aircraft industries have a tendency to pull rabbits out of their hat, but I think the complexity of recreating a B-2 like platform is going to give them a lot of headaches, especially with propulsion. I think the J20 is only just now about to receive the engine it was designed for.

 

50 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Now, in this obviously already difficult supply situation, the idea that the Taiwanese can somehow field an army of 1.5 million troops that will require about another 20,000 tons of supply a day on top of the 60,000 tons that they are not going to get?  They'll need 80,000 tons a day, they'll be lucky to be getting 5,000 tons a day.

Again, this assumes nothing is stored on the island to begin with.

 

50 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Given the impossibility of these basic numbers, I wonder if the real American Taiwan policy is more cynical in nature.  It's called a poison pill.  Washington and Taipei know they can't supply Taiwan through a blockade.   But what they can try to do is make sure that Taiwan is a ruined hulk of a mess if the Chinese take over.  Like with Ukraine.   Beijing seems to understand the situation perfectly, and seeks a solution where they get what they want without Taiwan being ruined in the process.

I would assume that is probably a fall back position if the island cannot be held, but I think the primary goal of the US would be the destruction of the PLAN to break the blockade. That would still leave a lot of land based missiles available (and aircraft), so like I said, such a war probably forces the US to attack mainland targets with long range cruise missiles, UAVs, and stealth bombers to degrade the missile threat. The US is ramping up production of missiles of all types and is looking to introduce 3-4 new types of stand off weapon in the next several years, in addition to heavily increasing JASSM production. The B-21 opens up a lot of glide bomb options as well.

[Josh]

It should also be noted that China is a net food, oil, and gas importer, as well as numerous other commodities it uses in its production industries. The counter blockade that the US brings against China wouldn't starve anyone but it would make things economically and politically uncomfortable for the country, and it would probably persists even after Taiwan conceded.

[Strannik]

Imagine how comfortable US would be without goods from China.

[urbanoid]

Quote

US deploys half of its aircraft carriers to China’s doorstep

The United States is expected to deploy almost half of its aircraft carriers in the Western Pacific this year, as military tensions continue to rise over North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and China’s territorial claims.

Three US aircraft carriers from the 11-strong fleet are already in the region, with two more on the way – an unprecedented number intended as a strong signal of deterrence, reported the South China Morning Post (SCMP).

The USS Abraham Lincoln was spotted earlier this month leaving its home port in San Diego, California, and heading towards the Western Pacific, according to the US Naval Institute’s Fleet and Marine Tracker.

The US Navy has also confirmed the USS George Washington will return this year to Japan, where it will replace the USS Ronald Reagan as the centrepiece of the US 7th Fleet’s carrier strike group.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/us-deploys-half-of-its-aircraft-carriers-to-china-s-doorstep/ar-BB1iozra?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=0aa003aa53ad412c9fc93102abf8d157&ei=86

[Josh]

Doorstep is not really descriptive. It would probably be more accurate to say they are deployed to the west pac. Also Washington is replacing Reagan, so presumably the two will be in theater together only briefly if at all. But even having 3-4 carries in theater is an increase.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Strannik said:

Imagine how comfortable US would be without goods from China.

More comfortable than China would be with reduced oil and food, I would hazard to guess.

[Strannik]

16 minutes ago, Josh said:

More comfortable than China would be with reduced oil and food, I would hazard to guess.

China has proven reserves equivalent to 5.4 years of current consumption.  Which would decrease significantly should it won't be able to export anything sans Russia.  This and between Russian supplies would be more than enough for quite a bit of time. 

As for food - yes, certain changes would happen, but between it's stores and Rus supplies - nothing terrible.

[Josh]

49 minutes ago, Strannik said:

China has proven reserves equivalent to 5.4 years of current consumption.  Which would decrease significantly should it won't be able to export anything sans Russia.  This and between Russian supplies would be more than enough for quite a bit of time.

Russian supplies are still predominantly delivered by sea. As for five years of supplies - I'll take your word for it. That seems like a vast amount of storage for country with higher consumption than the US. 

 

49 minutes ago, Strannik said:

As for food - yes, certain changes would happen, but between it's stores and Rus supplies - nothing terrible.

Nothing especially comfortable either, especially given the likelihood that fishing fleets would have to operate a lot more locally. Chinese fishing fleets operate as far away as South America in peacetime.

[Strannik]

2 minutes ago, Josh said:

1. Russian supplies are still predominantly delivered by sea.

2. As for five years of supplies - I'll take your word for it. That seems like a vast amount of storage for country with higher consumption than the US. 

Nothing especially comfortable either, especially given the likelihood that fishing fleets would have to operate a lot more locally. Chinese fishing fleets operate as far away as South America in peacetime.

1. I doubt US would have maritime control of Sea of Japan

2.  Reserves are not stores

But we have been there, no point of repeating the same arguments...

[Josh]

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

1. I doubt US would have maritime control of Sea of Japan

2.  Reserves are not stores

But we have been there, no point of repeating the same arguments...

I doubt China would have control of the Sea of Japan either.

If you are talking about reserves in the ground then that is meaningless.

[Roman Alymov]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

Russian supplies are still predominantly delivered by sea.

That is true, but another part of the story is that this supplies are first brought to sea ports by rail - so with some effort they could be rerouted, especially taking into consideration possibility of new rail lines and bridges....

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

Russian supplies are still predominantly delivered by sea.

In one post you indicate that the Russians will not intervene in a US-China war over Taiwan, "Russia is not getting into a war with the US for the sake of China".  Then soon after you state that Russian supplies come by sea, meaning that the USN would attack Russian flagged vessels trading with China.  Which is it?  

[glenn239]

5 hours ago, Strannik said:

Imagine how comfortable US would be without goods from China.

Chinese trade is only .5 trillion of a GDP of 27 trillion, only about 2% of GPD.  However, I think Chinese imports hit far above their weight in terms of "bang per buck" on the goods imported.  Without them, using other sources would cause serious inflationary pressure, especially with the poorer half of the US population.

Edited February 17, 2024 by glenn239

[Strannik]

24 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Chinese trade is only .5 trillion of a GDP of 27 trillion, only about 2% of GPD.  However, I think Chinese imports hit far above their weight in terms of "bang per buck" on the goods imported.  Without them, using other sources would cause serious inflationary pressure, especially with the poorer half of the US population.

When  Americans will go to Walmart and will see empty shelves or couldn't find anything on Amazon - make sure to tell them to buy "services" instead. 

Edited February 17, 2024 by Strannik

[glenn239]

37 minutes ago, Strannik said:

When  Americans will go to Walmart and will see empty shelves or couldn't find anything on Amazon - make sure to tell them to buy "services" instead. 

I sell tons of Chinese products to agricultural and industrial customers.  If these were taken away, I think the hit on the lower and middle classes would be huge.  A tire set that costs $5,000 from China and available today would cost more like $15,000 or more from American sources, and in many cases the lead time is in months.  

Sometime in these discussions, I think some posters in their vast imaginations about blockades and coalitions lose fact on the broader picture, which is that the tolerance for this type of public sacrifice shit was all used up in Covid.  I don't know what it's like where you are, but here the public mood currently is subdued, but under the surface it's frustrated, explosive.  People are pissed.

Edited February 17, 2024 by glenn239

[Josh]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

In one post you indicate that the Russians will not intervene in a US-China war over Taiwan, "Russia is not getting into a war with the US for the sake of China".  Then soon after you state that Russian supplies come by sea, meaning that the USN would attack Russian flagged vessels trading with China.  Which is it?  

Is Russia willing to fight the U.S. if it means an end to almost all energy exports? I am really doubtful.
 

I think that if Russia wants to keep anything that it has won it will have to do one of two things: absolutely subjugate itself to China, or : have its own foreign policy and take advantage if  the PRC and U.S. having a war to give a window for Russian nationalism.

But one thing Putin doesn’t want is to trade Beijing for Washington.

[Josh]

3 hours ago, Strannik said:

When  Americans will go to Walmart and will see empty shelves or couldn't find anything on Amazon - make sure to tell them to buy "services" instead. 

When China runs out of oil, I suspect the result is similar. The U.S. is a net energy exporter and runs the global shipping lanes even if the 7th Fleet magically disappears overnight.

Edited February 17, 2024 by Josh

[Josh]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I sell tons of Chinese products to agricultural and industrial customers.  If these were taken away, I think the hit on the lower and middle classes would be huge.  A tire set that costs $5,000 from China and available today would cost more like $15,000 or more from American sources, and in many cases the lead time is in months.  

Sometime in these discussions, I think some posters in their vast imaginations about blockades and coalitions lose fact on the broader picture, which is that the tolerance for this type of public sacrifice shit was all used up in Covid.  I don't know what it's like where you are, but here the public mood currently is subdued, but under the surface it's frustrated, explosive.  People are pissed.

Any war between the PRC and the U.S. would ferment a global depression for everyone. No one would be immune.

Edited February 17, 2024 by Josh

[Josh]

…

Edited February 17, 2024 by Josh

[Strannik]

RADM Carlos Sardiello:

"I am absolutely confident that the carrier strike group can execute the mission that it was designed to do effectively and safely...

Our highly trained sailors can operate these complex, contested domains and be lethal and survivable, and execute the mission regardless of what the threat is..."

[glenn239]

18 hours ago, Josh said:

Russian supplies are still predominantly delivered by sea. As for five years of supplies - I'll take your word for it. That seems like a vast amount of storage for country with higher consumption than the US. 

The Chinese consume about 14 mil bbl/day, of which guesstimating from US consumption patterns, maybe about 6 million BBL/day are used by automobiles and aircraft. Much of the rest is consumed in industry, of which some might be switched over to coal to cut oil usage. Between Russia and domestic production, they need about 7 mil BBL/day from other sources.   Civilian auto consumption could be rationed to maybe about 30% of the current civilian consumption level, forcing people to car pool, use trains and buses, buy electric vehicles, etc, to cope with their ration limitations.  (Chinese autos are about 319 million their EV production is about 5 million a year out of 27 million).

Imports from 3rd countries such as India, (importing from the ME and then re-exporting to China on Indian ships and overland) could be boosted from 0 right now to maybe 2 mill BBL a day.  (Unless - are you planning for the US to go to war with the entire world in this fit of madness we are discussing?)

So, rationing takes the Chinese from 14 to 10 consumed per day.  Increased imports take them from production of 7 per day to maybe 9 per day.  This allows their strategic reserve to cover the gap for a little short of 2 years, by which time their imports from Russia, India, etc, is presumably increased to cover the difference and put China in a net plus on the oil front.  They would also start converting coal to oil directly, like Germany did in WW2, adding another maybe 2-3 million BBL per day.

Conclusion - unless you are proposing that the US goes to war with the entire planet,  there is no reason to suppose China's oil situation will result in a crisis.  It will be covered by rationing, reconfiguring Chinese consumption to use more coal, and more re-export schemes from 3rd parties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2024 by glenn239

[glenn239]

12 hours ago, Josh said:

Any war between the PRC and the U.S. would ferment a global depression for everyone. No one would be immune.

The Chinese are a culturally and racially homogenous country.  The United States is a mismosh patchwork of hundreds of cultures and spoiled and entitled squabbling factions, its barely even now able to hold its domestic union together.  I think that the US domestic unity under wartime stress will disintegrate far more quickly than the China's will.  

On the food front, on the googling I did this morning, I think they (China) spends about 1.1 trillion a year on food domestically, plus another .125 trillion in imports (after deducting exports).  I think if the US starts going after Chinese fishing boats, or whatever other means you are suggesting, that the Chinese can make up the difference by importing more food from India (reexported from 3rd parties) and Russia.

In terms of the fishing boats, and the USN hunting these, have you actually even looked at the problem?  The Chinese have over 500,000 fishing boats.  Do understand that these can and will be armed with anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles.  They can also disguise themselves to resemble the other 3,500,000 fishing boats in the world, such that US aircraft, helicopters and ships trying to stop and search fishing boats could wind up being destroyed.

 

Edited February 17, 2024 by glenn239

[Strannik]

Makes sense