Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think that, in the event of a war, the US wouldn't start lobbing cruise missiles at that those pipelines, the mountain passes, and rail lines?
For all the talk about the US being such a big, war mongering meanie, you guys sure seem to dismiss its capabilities for fighting big, mean wars.
Also, how long will these belt and road projects hold up as China's economy sputters? Central Asia is drawn in by money and economics; if China fails to deliver, their allergiance wanes. If China hasn't delivered and then goes and gets into a war with the US and its allies...
It depends on whether Americans view it like Vietnam or Iraq, or like WW2. Vietnam and Iraq were nations that didn't truly have anything to do with the US or its global standing, which is the main reason there was so much discontent among Americans over them. WW2 was seen as an existential threat, and a war of "good vs evil."
Vietnam was a country no one in the US had heard of prior to the war. Iraq was widely regarded as a non-threat before and after the first Gulf War, and their actions impacted Americans little. Everyone knows about China, it's been a bogeyman before, it's been belligerent and assertive, and it's also been actively working to undercut American interests at the same time it has made some major threats to the US.
It also depends quite a bit how any war would start. If China decided to attack Taiwan after America has made it abundantly clear that it views Taiwan as a strategic interest and partner, or even more stupidly, if it attacked America or it's military first, then a majority of Americans would be willing to go to war.
The situations are so vastly different that if you are going back and comparing them as though they're apples to apples, and refer to it as "another country's civil war," you really either don't know what you're talking about, or are viewing it in grossly simplified, one-sided terms.
So if the U.S. bombs another country territory, what are those nations to do? This tactic is what turns regional conflicts into world wars. You lob missiles at another country, that country has to respond.
India is the largest country in the world, it doesn't need China. Indias economy is growing rapidly and will be able to produce most of the goods that China supply itself. India hate towards China will only get worse if China invades Taiwan, especially if the border disputes get violent.
And take a look at the map of Russia. It is facing a wall of unfriendly nations to the west, terrible geography to the south and China to the east. Its locked inside and will not be able to reexport goods into China.
Russia thought that their gas dominance over the EU would force them to follow Russia. They also thought the USA and EUs public can't stomach the war for very long and will demand a peace-treaty. Russia was wrong and China will be wrong when it assumes that the USA will only implement toothless sanctions and hence get humiliated by China.
Anyway, your argument provide evidence for what I am arguing, Chinese believe that the USA is bluffing, so they don't believe they are too weak to invade Taiwan.
If China tries to break the blockade, then it will be Chinese fighter jets and ships that will get sunk. This is not the 18th century, but many of the same rules apply, attackers suffer more than defenders.
The USA has suffered about almost 100,000 casualties from the Korean and Vietnam war. They are not going to suffer that kind of casualties from naval battles, so I don't agree with your argument that the USA won't stomach the losses.
The doctrine of the attacking party sustaining greater losses isn't necessarily true in Naval conflicts, particularly in the modern era. Parking ships off the coast of hostile country particularly one with modern rockets and ships is a receipt for disaster. The only way to alleviate the threat would be to bomb the air support military installations and infrastructure, but then you are attacking a nuclear armed nation directly. A naval aircraft carrier has around 6,000 people onboard. Losing just one is really big deal. Most No one in America wants WWIII over Taiwan.
If China actually attackes Taiwan, I wonder how many countries will boycott China like they did with Russia?
Back to my initial question - Will the U.S. get involved on this "conflict" and stomach the heavy losses that would ensure?
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So the answer is no, the U.S. can't stomach such heavy losses. The best strategy would be to form a coalition to attack together, but as history has shown, few countries are willing to join the U.S. at least in significant numbers when the stakes are too high.
The doctrine of the attacking party sustaining greater losses isn't necessarily true in Naval conflicts, particularly in the modern era.
I don't follow why attacking party sustaining greater losses isn't necessarily true in Naval conflicts. I would imagine it was especially true in naval battles as the incoming ships are predictable and exposed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice_Major
Parking ships off the coast of hostile country particularly one with modern rockets and ships is a receipt for disaster.
China's chokepoints are not off the coast of China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice_Major
The only way to alleviate the threat would be to bomb the air support military installations and infrastructure, but then you are attacking a nuclear armed nation directly. A naval aircraft carrier has around 6,000 people onboard. Losing just one is really big deal. Most No one in America wants WWIII over Taiwan.
If China sends fighter jets to sink the blockade, then it is Chinese fighter jets that will get shot down. Aircraft carriers are well-defended, China would have to attack with a massive amount of planes to sink one of them and China can't afford to lose that many planes.
Do you think that, in the event of a war, the US wouldn't start lobbing cruise missiles at that those pipelines, the mountain passes, and rail lines?
For all the talk about the US being such a big, war mongering meanie, you guys sure seem to dismiss its capabilities for fighting big, mean wars.
Also, how long will these belt and road projects hold up as China's economy sputters? Central Asia is drawn in by money and economics; if China fails to deliver, their allergiance wanes. If China hasn't delivered and then goes and gets into a war with the US and its allies...
It depends on whether Americans view it like Vietnam or Iraq, or like WW2. Vietnam and Iraq were nations that didn't truly have anything to do with the US or its global standing, which is the main reason there was so much discontent among Americans over them. WW2 was seen as an existential threat, and a war of "good vs evil."
Vietnam was a country no one in the US had heard of prior to the war. Iraq was widely regarded as a non-threat before and after the first Gulf War, and their actions impacted Americans little. Everyone knows about China, it's been a bogeyman before, it's been belligerent and assertive, and it's also been actively working to undercut American interests at the same time it has made some major threats to the US.
It also depends quite a bit how any war would start. If China decided to attack Taiwan after America has made it abundantly clear that it views Taiwan as a strategic interest and partner, or even more stupidly, if it attacked America or it's military first, then a majority of Americans would be willing to go to war.
The situations are so vastly different that if you are going back and comparing them as though they're apples to apples, and refer to it as "another country's civil war," you really either don't know what you're talking about, or are viewing it in grossly simplified, one-sided terms.
Good post. Thanks for jumping in.
Based on publically available information, it's the consensus that if China decides to attack Taiwan, they will hit the U.S. bases in anticipation of U.S. will interfere. This includes Okinawa and Guam as minimum using long range hypersonic missile such as the DF-21 and DF-26. There's even a speculation that they will hit Hawaii where the majority of U.S. naval fleet resides.
If that happens, then it's equivalent of direct attack on the U.S. soil then the U.S. opinion will shift just like when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
If this happens, it will not be just the U.S. vs. China. It will be the U.S. led-alliance including Japan, S. Korea, Phillipines, and Austrailia/ New Zealand as minimum, maybe India will participate as well.
The doctrine of the attacking party sustaining greater losses isn't necessarily true in Naval conflicts, particularly in the modern era. Parking ships off the coast of hostile country particularly one with modern rockets and ships is a receipt for disaster. The only way to alleviate the threat would be to bomb the air support military installations and infrastructure, but then you are attacking a nuclear armed nation directly. A naval aircraft carrier has around 6,000 people onboard. Losing just one is really big deal. Most No one in America wants WWIII over Taiwan.
If this "war" breaks out, it will be a war of missiles and satellites. The China has hypersonic missiles so they may not need to send aircrafts into "the danger zone". The U.S. has Tomahawk cruise missile & anti-ship missiles, and the strategy for aircraft carriers to stay outside of Chinese long range missile stike zones.
It's widely anticipated that China will attack U.S. air bases in Okinawa and Guam to destroy the runways so the U.S. fighter jets can not take off. The average American may feel differently if the U.S. bases are attacked and may support the WW-III over Taiwan.
If this "war" breaks out, it will be a war of missiles and satellites. The China has hypersonic missiles so they may not need to send aircrafts into "the danger zone". The U.S. has Tomahawk cruise missile & anti-ship missiles, and the strategy for aircraft carriers to stay outside of Chinese long range missile stike zones.
It's widely anticipated that China will attack U.S. air bases in Okinawa and Guam to destroy the runways so the U.S. fighter jets can not take off. The average American may feel differently if the U.S. bases are attacked and may support the WW-III over Taiwan.
Aircraft carriers can only stay so far. These ships are meant to launch aircraft and aircraft have a limited range. They wouldn't be able to stay out of range of the missiles specifically designed to take them out such as the DF-21.
I don't think it's widely anticipated that China will attack U.S. airbases. As you mentioned this could provoke a much larger conflict. It would be a better strategy to instead attack ships and planes coming from the bases while they are in transit to the warzone. Guam is useless outside of staging material, it's too far. Knowing the history of War, the truth is the first casualty, so any attack on U.S. aircraft and ships would be sold to the American people as "they are directly attacking us." Few would probably question why? But it wouldn't matter. A war between the U.S. and China would see destruction at a wide scale. With a body count greatly exceeding any recent conflicts. Those posters who are trying portray this as a walk in the park for the U.S. are seriously delusional.
Based on publically available information, it's the consensus that if China decides to attack Taiwan, they will hit the U.S. bases in anticipation of U.S. will interfere. This includes Okinawa and Guam as minimum using long range hypersonic missile such as the DF-21 and DF-26. There's even a speculation that they will hit Hawaii where the majority of U.S. naval fleet resides.
If that happens, then it's equivalent of direct attack on the U.S. soil then the U.S. opinion will shift just like when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
If this happens, it will not be just the U.S. vs. China. It will be the U.S. led-alliance including Japan, S. Korea, Phillipines, and Austrailia/ New Zealand as minimum, maybe India will participate as well.
You're making grand assumptions. Think about your last statement. If S. Korea attacks China, that will mean instant war with N. Korea which would be upgraded with Chinese and Russian arms. I'm sure that is not a risk they are willing to take. Look at how hesitant they’ve been with providing Ukraine arms. Why would the Philippians join a U.S. conflict. India has no reason to join. It would come out better if China and the U.S. took each other out. Australia and New Zealand maybe, but their contribution wouldn't contribute much. Stop assuming the U.S. has some great alliance ready to fight at any time for its interest. That's all propaganda.
I don't follow why attacking party sustaining greater losses isn't necessarily true in Naval conflicts. I would imagine it was especially true in naval battles as the incoming ships are predictable and exposed.
China's chokepoints are not off the coast of China.
If China sends fighter jets to sink the blockade, then it is Chinese fighter jets that will get shot down. Aircraft carriers are well-defended, China would have to attack with a massive amount of planes to sink one of them and China can't afford to lose that many planes.
Think about your first statement "incoming ships are predictable and exposed." Is a ship parked along a coast not predicable and exposed. Unlike on land, where the defendant can make an assortment of defenses, ships are more limited in this regard. Sitting stationary anywhere against a country modern anti-naval force is just asking for pain. Chinese missiles have ranges of thousands of miles. China rightfully figured that a military conflict would be naval as opposed to land. Think about it. The U.S. has no partners which share a land border with China.
Think about your first statement "incoming ships are predictable and exposed." Is a ship parked along a coast not predicable and exposed.
They are predictable, but they are not exposed as they are far away from China and the USA has a lot of friendly military bases along the coast that will provide protection against enemy attacks.
However, if the Chinese navy try to break the blockade, then they will be exposed as they are in the open sea with no protection far away from China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice_Major
Chinese missiles have ranges of thousands of miles.
Missles with that range normally doesn't have the accuracy to hit a ship, they are very expensive and can also be shot down before it reaches the target.
Last edited by Camlon; 08-12-2023 at 02:39 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
