@@danjohnston9037 Just dreaming. All OUR wars back to Vietnam seem to be long, and we lose them. I spent some time at Bagram. I still dream about all the stuff we left them.
@@robgrey6183 Yeah, I saw the footage of all those Nam Era APCs , looking real top-heavy for narrow mountain roads. It's like we used the place for a junkyard and left the scrap behind. You dream about that ? You in the scrap business ?
I think the US needs to have reserve industrial capacity to build ‘good enough’ munitions and equipment at low cost and high value……. Ukraine teaches that having high tech capabilities are great if the supply chain can deliver in volume and sustain…. Currently it doesn’t look like it can!
Low cost, large numbers of munitions and low cost ways to deliver them will win the war in the Pacific. $3 million LRASMs are great but there is no way to make them fast enough and they are far too expensive, to win a long war against China. We need munitions that cost $100,000 and can deliver 1,000 lb bombs via long, slow glide mechanisms from B2s and B21s. It's one small step up from the tail fin kits that were added to dumb bombs during the Gulf War.
This is the nuclear age. Manufacturing would play next to no role at all in a conflict with China because the conflict won't last long enough. Either diplomatic action will result in a rapid cease- fire or it will escalate to a nuclear exchange with a few weeks to a month at the outside. No nation on this planet has the ability to replace the heavy losses of sophisticated equipment or skilled technical personnel which a high- intensity conflict between to Tier 1 powers will produce. The most important thing is to avoid the war in the first place because it could easily spiral out of control into a nuclear exchange.
@@manilajohn0182 U.S. currently has nuclear dominance. But for how long? As long our survival depends on it! The Tier 1 power with the greater disruptive escalation capabilities will deny an adversary kill chain infrastructure stability and workability.
@@manilajohn0182 Even assuming you're correct, being able to present the ability to continue the conflict for an extended period will be vital for securing favourable terms in diplomacy.
@@manilajohn0182blah blah this is what said in Russia and Russia has big chunk of territory and they haven’t used nuclear weapons over USA aid I don’t think just giving ally’s military aid will prevent china military victory. Your coward. If you don’t use weapons fullest extent than you will lose just look at Russia they haven’t been pushed in Ukraine since start of the war they will likely gain territories from Ukraine. What you’re saying just let enemy win. Stupid defeatist talk
The final point regarding allies- hopefully the US can learn from the mistakes of MacArthur. Allies expect to be treated as equals, not subordinates. They have their own doctrines, political situations, strategic schedules, and of course their own pride and belief that they are the greatest nation in the world. Let Japan go island-hopping with their cavalry, let the Korean artillery turn the battlefield into a parking lot, and any questions about what Australian infantry do in the jungle can probably wait until the post-war tribunals.
There are a few points which seem to have been overlooked. First, and foremost - industrial capacity. In WW2 and every conflict since, the biggest US advantage was industrial capacity. This advantage now belongs to China. Drone swarms to create the hellscape scenarios all require a massive industrial base. Ditto hypersonics, missiles, shells, etc. The simple fact is that China will be able to outbuild the U.S. on a massive scale. This has serious implications in a long conflict where losses need replacement. Specifically, any conflict is likely to begin with the U.S. at a numerical material disadvantage and the disadvantage will only grow as losses mount because China’s replacement rate is likely to be higher. Secondly, there seems to be an assumption that the U.S. will be confronting China alone. But what happens if China has allies? Or, what if the U.S. commitments to allies require the U.S. to spread their forces? Specifically, what if the U.S. is spread out around the world, containing Russia in Europe and the Arabs in the Middle East and a third conflict in Africa? Would the U.S. even be able to focus enough force to pose a credible threat to China? Finally, economic and logistics warfare were mentioned. Specifically, mining and embargoing the Chinese. But, what happens if the Chinese also strikes at the U.S. logistics train, and deploys drone and manned submarines to attack and blockade U.S. ports and shipping? Is the USN large enough to provide rear area security while fighting China let alone a scenario where there are multiple conflicts at the same time? So, while all of the strategies mentioned can be used to confront China, I also suggest that the Chinese can also use the same strategies on the US. The result will probably be two nations driven to economic ruin at the least; a nuclear holocaust at the worst. I would suggest that the stakes in this game of nations is now too high to even consider any direct confrontation between great powers and that if great powers don’t learn to co-exist, the alternative is mutual destruction at the least; the end of the human race at the worst. So, for the sake of all humanity, please learn to co-exist.
Industrial capacity is not a factor because the conflict won't last long enough conventionally. It will either end quickly via diplomatic negotiation and a cease- fire, or it will escalate to a nuclear exchange.
@@manilajohn0182It will not escalate into a nuclear exchange unless the US attempts to invade China or if the 3 Gorges Dam is destroyed. Both of which are very unlikely to happen.
@@manilajohn0182 Yes, they cannot sustain it, but provide reasoning as to why that would lead to nuclear escalation. Not being able to sustain a war and nuclear escalation are two very distinct things, and one does not have to lead to the other. In fact, it has a very low chance of leading to nuclear escalation.
@@voidtempering8700 I never said that such a conflict 'would' lead to a nuclear exchange. I said that either diplomatic intervention and cease fire, or escalation to a nuclear exchange would result. Provide proof that it has a very low chance of leading to nuclear escalation.
This is all very sensible. Unfortunately, it really seems that the USN lacks the number of ships to even pursuit a denial strategy, much less a longer attritional conflict.
@@CyanTeamProductionsTrue, but are they? Will Japan put on a bulls eye just to save Taiwan, they will face missiles over Tokyo, not U.S. over Washington, will South Korea risk an invasion from North in order to support Taiwan? To ask someone that live in the neighbourhood to die because an American world order will not give an obvious answer.
Awesome interview. Thank you Commander for you valuable insight! I do believe that United States is weak at reconstituting our military forces at this time. Right now, I feel we only get one chance to get this right. If not.............who knows.
The U.S. Navy needs to increase its AA gun and short-range small missile interceptor platforms on every ship in order to defend against drones. This is esp. critical for the USNS ships that are practically defenseless and are as valuable as a CV. The USN also needs to both increase the hulls for CV's, USNS and also a new class of ship that would be dedicated to Air-Defense in order to escort and protect all of our resupply ships, like a frigate size. The amount of CIWIS systems on all USN ships needs to be doubled or even tripled.
Excellent and informative! I'm happy to see that we have capable and intelligent people taking this existential threat seriously. Let's remember that military matters are only one aspect of the war that is currently being waged. We don't seem to take the other equally important aspects as seriously or even recognize and try to understand them. If we want to prevent the war, we should work on this critical aspect. Kinetic warfare is the very last part of a long war and should be avoided by fully understanding the enemy. Because they're doing that in their preparation already and it's our true weakness.
In 2023, China produced almost 9 millions EVs, and expect to top 11 millions in 2024. China control 70% of global Drones productions. If China switch to War Economic, thats easily 11 millions drones per year, or even push to 22 millions a year. Not to mention S.Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand will under massive drone attacks. By supply only one million cheap attack drones to Middle East will wipe out Israels defence system, and draw US/Nato away from Far East.
How long a war in the South China Sea becomes depends on how many ships the US navy loses at the outset. This is going to be a "come-as-you-are" war, there's no waiting around for five years for Newport News Shipbuilding to replace the CVNs we lose, one at a time, and America's shipbuilding industry today is so anemic that it's pointless to count on a World War II-style massive fleet buildup over the course of the war. In a high-intensity conflict, I doubt we'd be able to replace our losses, not to mention build up the fleet. And the fleet is already too small as it is. At the outset of any conflict with China, "force preservation" is not going to be a mission consideration for the navy; it's going to be the mission itself, "Operation Sauve Qui Peut." At best we'll probably end up with a new defensive line that traces from Australia through Hawaii and up to Alaska. I doubt any base facilities will remain operational beyond that, including Guam. Counting on our allies in the region is like counting on your four-year-old son to help you mow the lawn. They don't have meaningful forces to help us out, and they're going to take massive losses from the start that they can't replace. Australia, South Korea, and Japan are going to be hard-pressed to preserve themselves. Everybody else is a joke. Once we complete the bug-out from the Western Pacific, we'll probably have to rely on a distant blockade to try to choke off China from strategic resources, particularly oil, while using long-range aircraft like B1s, B2s, B-52s, and B21s to wage attrition warfare against China's surface fleet and to attack its naval bases while our SSNs duke it out with China's submarines. Only after that attrition effort achieves considerable success could we consider risking what remaining CVNs we have left, reinforced by drone ships - which is all we might be able to build in the time frame required - on any kind of offensive operations to retake lost territory. The USA went overboard after the Cold War, cashing in on "The Peace Dividend." We don't have the industrial base to wage a war like we did in World War II, even though we're probably going to have to replay War Plan Orange from that conflict. Our only hope will be to inflict even heavier losses on the Chinese, to the point where they attrit even worse than we do.
There can be no long war. One of the combatants will begin to lose conventionally after a few weeks to a month as losses in sophisticated equipment and skilled personnel rapidly exceed the ability of either nation to replace them. If diplomatic intervention fails to end the conflict by that time, escalation to a nuclear exchange of unknown magnitude will take place.
@@Squirl513 That's because you misunderstand the two situations. They are not the same. The conflict in Ukraine is one between a nuclear power and a second- ranked power in which neither the status of the Russian Federation nor the United States as a great power is at risk. That of the Russians isn't because Ukraine lacks the ability to conquer the Russian Federation, while that of the U.S. isn't because they're not directly involved in the fighting. A conflict between the U.S. and China would be a clash between to major nuclear powers which neither could afford to lose on the global stage. The size and sophistication of their armed forces means high casualties over a short period for both which neither can possible replace quickly. The prospective loser will resort to use of NBC weaponry to restore the balance.
@@manilajohn0182 just because a conflict goes nuclear does not mean that it will end. I fundamentally disagree with the first sentence of your first comment.
the US wants the Kantai Kessen just like Japan in WW II. Even when it does succeed like at Trafalgar it doesn't end the war; France didn't surrender the first time until 7 years after they're fleet was beaten.
@Saberjet1950 No. The US rejects Kantai Kessen, which was a gross misunderstanding of Mahan. The US wants to deter China by making sure China understands it will NOT be short war.
A Chinese general wrote the most essential treatise on the “art” of war thousands of years ago; convince the enemy he has lost before he acts. America’s leaders once understood deterrence, they bet all our lives on MAD. What has been forgotten is the critical role a society’s socio-economic legitimacy plays in sustaining the high level of political morale essential for translating deterrence into a sustainable strategy in the face of human nature. I suggest reading Amaranthine: How to Create a Regenerative Civilization Using Artificial Intelligence. PS: I was an advisor to Estep and Litman
Insightful podcast thank you. Comments are interesting… several overtly political and a few from the CCP. I’m an American person without an axe to grind. My two cents: Blockade of China will be required. And we’d better start learning to build ships fast again because they sure can now.
When losses in both sophisticated equipment and skilled personnel cause one side to begin losing in a few weeks or a month, what do you believe will take place then?
Check the map again. China is a an Eurasian Continental country. China can easily get its trade, natural resources, raw materials, food, energy by land. That is why China is spending gazillions of dollars on the Belt and Road project so build the infrastructure like the railroads, highways, ports and air ports to link Eurasia to China. All Trade with China can easily be sent by sea to other countries with ports in Eurasia like Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Myanmar and then be sent by land or by rail to China through Eurasia. China is self sufficient in many things already and China can get a lot it natural resources from Russia and Kazakhstan . Russia and Kazakhstan as well as other Central Asian countries have endless amounts of raw materials, energy, food, and fertilizer. Taiwan on the other hand is an Island. Taiwan imports almost 60% of all of its food from abroad to feed its people. 27% of all of Taiwan's food comes from Mainland China. Taiwan imports almost 99% of all of its energy from abroad. If the US blockades China. The US will be blockading itself. Pentagon officials testified before congress that 40% of all semi conductors used in US weapons are manufacturered in China. I would guess that a lot of the other 60% are manufacturered in Taiwan. Furthermore most of the rare earths and processing for those rare earths used to manufacture US weapons comes from China If the US blockades China not only will all US isupermarket shelves will be empty The US won't be able to get the rare earths and semiconductors from China or Taiwan needed to manufacture many of its most sophisticated weapons. There will be a shortage of everything in the United States. Inflation will go through the roof Remember how inflation hit the US after Covid19. If you think that is bad, you have no idea how bad it would be if you blockade China. Plus China could easily blockade all the goods from other Asians countries from heading to the US. The US couldn't even defeat the Houthis blockade of Israel in the red sea. The Houthis have no air force or navy. All they have is $20 000 drones Do you really think the US will be able to break a Chinese Navy blockade of Taiwan.
I remember when the Russo-Ukraine war started. People were saying it would be over in a few weeks. Then I saw civilians beating back BMPs with Molotov Cocktails. I also remember thinking if the Ukrainians were that determined, this war would go on and on and on.
A more appropriate title should be, No One Should Think the War Can be Won.....Neither the US, Russia or China can afford to lose in a conventional war.....Therefore, it is delusional to think the loser will not resort to nuclear weapons as a last resort....and MAD....
There are three super powers in the world, Russia, China and USA. No one can win a war in other super powers back yard. Period. US has no chance to beat China in Far East, just like US/Nato can not push Russian troops out of Ukraine.
Conventional wars dont typically end like world war 2 with total occupation of your enemy and unconditional surrender, most are ended through settlements historically, not that i disagree just an observation
@@giftzwerg7345I'm not sure why that follows - lost according to who? And by what metric? All wars are a form of escalation competition, whereby both parties seek to inflict proportionally greater losses on the other whilst avoiding what they consider unacceptable losses for themselves, by escalating means. The victor is the party that achieves escalation dominance, by demonstrating their ability to reach a higher rung on the ecalation ladder, which would allow them to inflict unacceptable losses on their opponent, whilst not suffering such losses themselves. For example, the US defeated Japan in WWII by demonstrating escalation dominance through the use of nuclear weapons (or, arguably, even earlier, through its strategic bombing campaign). Nuclear weapons are a guarantee against strategic defeat in conventional warfare for the precise reason that there are no escalation steps beyond nuclear war. You cannot top strategic nuclear weapons, because such weapons are already capable of destroying entire nations outright (if not the entire World), which unequivocally meets the threshold of "unacceptable losses" for any party. Any nuclear weapons state is rationally obliged to use nuclear weapons in the eventuality that they face strategic defeat by conventional means, in order to render their opponent's escalation dominance in conventional war obsolete. The conventionally stronger opponent then has the choice of escalating to nuclear war, or giving up a conventional war. The rational conclusion to this situation is that nuclear weapons states should never rationally go to war, because they know that the escalation cycle will inevitably end in nuclear weapons use and either conventional stalemate, or nuclear Mutually Assured Destruction. Sadly, rationality doesn't always prevail.
It isnt just foolhardy to think of this war as being a short enterprise. Its DANGEROUS. A short war can easily be viewed as having more positives than negatives. Focus on the reality of a Long, bloody, drawn out war and you do better calculus and decision making.
A direct long, drawn- out conventional war between two major nuclear- armed powers is a fallacy. None of them would have the ability to replace their losses of sophisticated equipment and skilled technical personnel in a timely manner. Within a few weeks to a month at the outside, one of them would begin to lose the conflict conventionally. The prospective loser would then resort to the use of one or more NBC weapons to redress the balance. The idea of a short war that's not halted by diplomatic intervention is dangerous because it would quickly escalate to a nuclear exchange. The war in Ukraine is not a viable example because there are not two nuclear powers in a direct clash there.
@@manilajohn0182You are also doing the false assumption of assuming that either side would use NBC or nuclear weaponry. Provide proof that this is not only a possibility, but would be a first choice if they begin taking losses. Neither country's doctrine allows such thing.
@@voidtempering8700 I'm not required to provide proof that either side would use NBC or nuclear weaponry any more than you're required to provide proof that either side would not. The fact remains that the U.S. is not bound by a NFU pledge, and while China is, laws are silent in time of war. Having said the above, note that I've never said that either nation 'would' use NBC weaponry. I've said that there can be no long, drawn- out conventional war between two major nuclear- armed powers. Their inability to replace high losses in both skilled manpower and sophisticated equipment over a short period makes that impossible. One of the combatants will begin to conventionally lose after a few weeks to a month at the outside, at which point either diplomatic intervention will lead to a cease- fire or escalation to a nuclear exchange will result. The reason for this is that neither the United States nor China could afford to lose a direct clash between the two nations- and neither will accept such a defeat without using the weaponry available in their arsenals.
@@voidtempering8700 I'm not required to provide proof any more than you're required to agree with what I've said. The U.S. is not bound by a NFU pledge, and while China is, laws are silent in time of war. I've never said that either nation 'would' use NBC weaponry. I've said that there can be no long, drawn- out conventional war between two major nuclear- armed powers. Their inability to replace losses in both skilled manpower and sophisticated equipment makes that impossible. One of the combatants will begin to conventionally lose after a few weeks to a month at the outside, at which point either diplomatic intervention will lead to a cease- fire or escalation to a nuclear exchange will result.
@@voidtempering8700 UA-cam is eating my posts. I'm not required to provide proof any more than you're required to agree with what I've said. The U.S. is not bound by a NFU pledge, and while China is, laws are silent in time of war. I've never said that either nation 'would' use NBC weaponry. I've said that there can be no long, drawn- out conventional war between two major nuclear- armed powers. Their inability to replace losses in both skilled manpower and sophisticated equipment makes that impossible. One of the combatants will begin to conventionally lose after a few weeks to a month at the outside, at which point either diplomatic intervention will lead to a cease- fire or escalation to a nuclear exchange will result.
With our diminishing national resources, we will need to pick and choose which conflicts to involve ourselves in. We can no longer afford to be world policeman.
Everyone thinks that war is a thing, an act to be done and forgotten. It is a living breathing animal, and it has a mind all its own. Assuming you can control it at all, determine the length of its existence or the ferocity of its many rampages is the height of human hubris. War is hell.
ALL military service schools (junior & senior), and war colleges should understand and teach the lessons of the Ukraine war....and internalize that it's not worth starting another one! Modern warfare has changed exponentially. 3/4 of our current weapons platforms are now obsolete.
what about "forward" US Navy bases? How about constructing "floating" dry docks to be able to repair warships closer to theater of operations? We are a representative republic, not a democracy.
Maybe its time to bail out Intel first, another few billion of Tax payers money. 😁
Місяць тому
back in 1974 i had a college roommate that was in ROTC , and he had a subscription to " army times " . one issue did a story on the " after action report " on the 1973 israel/ arab war. the conclusion was that after all the " high tech " is all used up , what remained was the individual soldier , and how MOTIVATED he was to survive and continue to bring the war to the enemy. high tech is great , but if the manufacture / supply chain is interrupted then all you have left is the soldier in the fox hole. i wonder just HOW MOTIVATED the american soldier will be , and the american public when large losses are announced from a foreign battlefield.
The problem the US would face in a war with China is that it would spread vertically and horizontally. It would not remain confined to the South China Sea and Taiwan Straits. It is easy to imagine the war spreading to the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere. Furthermore, the United States no longer has the industrial and logistical capability to support fleets and armies fighting on multiple fronts. America is no longer the industrial, scientific, and technological powerhouse it was at the height of the Apollo Project in the late 1960s. Due to nearly forty years of outsourcing, the US has been hollowed out industrially. It can be said that the US is rotting from the inside out. It is an empire in steep decline. If wars are won on the factory floor rather than on the battlefield the US would lose badly. For example, the Chinese shipbuilding capacity is nearly two hundred times that of the US. The Chinese also outproduce the US in steel, aluminum, and in other crucial economic categories. Furthermore, due to the failures of the American educational system, the Chinese are graduating nearly five million STEM graduates a year, which is nearly eight times the number of STEM graduates that the US is graduating in the same period. Although, the US Navy currently has a significant advantage in operational experience and technology over the Chinese, especially when it comes to the US Navy’s submarine and carrier force, over time this advantage will become a wasting asset as the Chinese gain expertise in those areas. It is also worth noting that the US relies on the Indians and Chinese for its supply of high-explosives and some of its major weapon components. If the US ever gets into a war with China, access to the resources will dry up overnight. To cap it off, in a war with China the Americans will have to conduct operations in China’s backyard, which would stretch American logistics to a breaking point. In short, in a battle of production, the Chinese will be able to easily outproduce the US in every important category of weapon. The combination of China’s industrial advantage and the fact that the Chinese will be operating close to their industrial and logistic centers will present the US with an insuperable problem. Due to the constraint of distance, the US might not be able to sustain high-intensity operations over the long haul. It is also hard to imagine the US being able to reconstitute its forces due to its lack of industrial capacity. We can readily observe this problem being played out in the present. In the current war in Ukraine, the US has drawn down its stock of high-tech weapons. It is struggling to keep Ukraine supplied from current production. High-tech weapons like the Patriot anti-aircraft missile system, JSSM cruise missile, and HIMAR tactical multi-launch rockets have proven difficult to build in numbers. Even ramping up the production of Stinger, MANPADs and Javelin anti-tank missiles have proven difficult due to shortages in skilled workers and a lack of factory space. In addition, when it comes to artillery production the US will be hard-pressed to produce 50,000 shells per month. The Russian Federation, in contrast, can produce up to 150,000 per month. This fact highlights one of the major flaws in America’s current economic system. Unlike the Chinese and Russians, the US simply lacks the surplus capacity to expand its production like it was able to do in World War Two. Furthermore, although the Chinese population is aging, the Chinese still outnumber the US by four to one. In a long attritional struggle, these numbers will ultimately play against the US. Taking all of these different factors into consideration, the US would lose a long war of attrition with China.
Not many decades ago the United States produced half the steel in the world. Now it is China that produces half the steel in the world. The United States produces 1/12th the steel that China does, and that statistic is replicated in many other industrial categories.
@@zacnewman7140 You are right. I just like to practice my writing skills. Occasionally someone will read what I have written and make an informed comment. But most people don’t have the brain cells to digest a piece of text that is more than two sentences long. Dancing dog videos are more their style.
@SeattlePioneer ok, that's all well and good, but are you working anywhere remotely close to the military decision-making apparatus? "People who matter" are the ones who are making long-term strategic and purchasing decisions for the Navy and Marines. Those people are the subject experts, they _should_ know better than to comment here for OPSEC reasons and they also know anyone posting here _doesn't_ know enough to be worth paying attention to.
Neoliberal business practices have offshored our mighty industrial complex. We cannot win any conflict with on- demand boutique solutions produced in low quantities. What happened to the US mighty capacity to supply both civilian and military crisis? We used to stockpile food, machinery, sundries, and supplies. Years ago there were contingency plans and logistics to address these issues. Private corporate domain has gutted our power only to manufacture crisis and sell the solutions.
As of twelve minutes in, I don't think the war in question will happen unless it's going to be short. If the US strategy is to deny China a successful crossing of the straits, that requires a level of forward presence that China would be able to recognize. If the US has that strategy, but doesn't maintain that presence, that means we don't have the necessary resolve to undertake a long war. Stationing a carrier battle group nearby is easy; finding the resolve to escalate instead of accepting fait-mostly-accompli is hard. In any scenario where China would begin the war, they would be able to provide some sort of face-saving measure for the US. Maybe provoke a crisis somewhere in Africa where the US would have significant interests at stake, then invade Taiwan, then concede whatever's at stake in Africa in return for US acquiescence to Chinese control over Taiwan. Whatever would help us pretend we hadn't lost. China is in a fundamentally different position from Russia. China is a superpower; Russia is barely a regional power. China wants to adjust the status quo, to get from a position of advantage to one of greater advantage; Russia wants to destroy the status quo, to get from a position of terminal decline to anything else. China's hegemonic plans are a matter of existing facts on the ground, whose ongoing management imposes daily reality checks; Russia's aspirations to empire are a malignant fantasy that can inflate with no tether to reality at all. On the other hand, if our strategy is to try to convince China that we have the resolve for a long slog with devastating repercussions on both superpowers, that basically invites them to call our bluff. Even if we really do have the resolve, it will still look like a bluff. You can see across the water to observe forward force deployment. You can't see into the future to observe how the public will react to a massive decrease in standards of living. Never base your escalatory ladder on threats that your adversary can't evaluate, unless you're just bluffing about something inconsequential. And never do that, if the ladder reaches all the way to catastrophe.
I started thinking the following about a decade ago, as China started to move back towards more repression and proved wrong the so-called experts of the '90's that promised that as we outsourced more to China, it would enable their middle class to have more political say. I was not concerned about China in the next 30+ years, I was concerned about them in the next 10-15 years which is around now. There was no way their high economic growth was going to continue; that was in part due to moving a large population out of peasantry into being members of a productive economy. It was obvious, that eventually cheap wages would come to an end and their economy would flatten out and even experience periods of decline. They had created too many domestic issues with rampant corruption, their lack of marriage age woman (legacy of the 1 child policy), and creating an environmental nightmare that is effecting the long term health of their population. I think people will tolerate the increasing repression if their lives are improving, but not if their lives are only getting worse. Assuming the communists stay in power, they were going to have to start to buy off the masses and shift money from the military to domestic programs. The issue will be the period where things go bad but their military is still large. Economically, we have started to see this since Covid hit, but which has accelerated in the past 2 years as more and more foreign companies are moving out of China for political and economic considerations and exports drop. China's current economic situation is looking poor in the near term and if something doesn't change, I question the long term. My concern is we may be approaching that point where the leadership in China may start to consider the old adage about "what we need is a short victorious war to distract the masses." And looking at the thought of their military having to shrink, they will be in the mindset of "Use it or lose it." Taiwan being the most obvious target. The next few years will be interesting.
CDR Cobb looks objectivly at the situation in the western Pacific. The way its been is NOT sustainable. The variables in the equation have changed. I keep visualizing WalMart's shelves in the aftermath of such a war, empty. The people in the USA are woefully prepaired for empty shelves much less the pain of a hot war. The commander is right, it would not be limited to Tiawan, it couldn't be - that's wishful thinking. "In for a dime in for a dollar" an old saying meaning you better not try doing it on the cheap.
I agree with Tinkles in the last half about our strengths and weaknesses, but I'm afraid Rand is right about the first half... We absolutely cannot, and should not cede the initiative to our enemies. Especially one as untested and ill prepared as China. THE WORST thing we can do, is give them time to fire up their industry and give their soldiers and sailors time to slowly gain experience and confidence by fighting anything less than a swift, crushing defeat. We have this terrible habit of thinking that the rest of the world thinks likes us... China is a dictatorship, dictatorships do not see dialogue and soft attacks as de-escalatory, they see it as weakness, a weakness they can take advantage of, and so they will. If there is a point where we choose to give China an offramp to de-escalation, it needs to come in the form of a generous offer of peace along with a promise of the hell that will await them should they refuse that very generous offer, and we MUST follow up on that promise if it comes down to it, because the rest of the world is watching. Dictatorships are notorious for both overestimating their own capabilities, as well as underestimating that of their enemies. That means anything less than swift, overwhelming force will not achieve deterrence, so let's prepare to not only deliver that, but do so confidently. The consequence of not intimidating and achieving deterrence equals this escalating all the way to nuclear as Xi will think he's got this in the bag because he's tougher or whatever other macho bs dictators love telling themselves. Let's not make the Chinese 10ft tall like we did the Soviets. The CCP is fundamentally broken and corrupt, that gives us an insane advantage both technologically and in the competence of our military. They will always be broken and corrupt for as long as they remain a single party dictatorship. It's time for us to be confident in ourselves again.
CMDR Cobb should read not only The Great Wall at Sea (a bit outdated) but also read the most recent papers written by Bernard Cole, Capt. USN Ret. Cole teaches at the War College and from what I've read of his papers would have a different outlook. Too many reasons to get into for a 'Comment' but China has many issues to overcome before it could be more than a Paper Tiger.
We’re already capped at max production for land artillery munitions. In fact we are at a low reserve levels since aiding Ukraine. There “is no manufacturing” in N America anymore. At least nothing meaningful.
China knows they'll face major military loss and are somewhat timid to start a war right now especially when their economy isn't so hot and are having other issues going on inside the country
An interesting point that you touched on here is how the Chinese people would react to losing a significant number of servicemen in the South China sea, and it brought to mind a recent Perun episode about how different societies react differently to a given deterent. Shi Zeng Ping doesn't care about the outrage of his population. The CCP is already maintaining their power in China by the threat or application of violence, they offered the carrot of prosperity if the commoners stay away from politics but the stick of violent suppression has always been there. In the US losing 100,000 soldiers in a confict in Taiwan would probably be the end of the current administration. In China losing a million men in the same conflict is probably a shrug and another round of conscription. What I'm getting at is that you can't ask "how would we react to that?" and figure on China reacting in a similar way.
I suspect China will try to gain a tactical advantage by masking their initial invasion approach as commercial vessels. They have already made a lot of their commercial transports dual use, so I suspect that large commercial transport vessels will carry troops close to Taiwan, maybe all the way into port, before starting hostilities. Taiwan has to make strict rules, backed up by a willingness to open fire, if those rules are violated.
Місяць тому
We will lose the attritional part. The Chinese will take anything that floats and overwhelm any high cost/tech reaction we have. I don’t see us keeping air superiority in order to fly in US soldiers.
Kamala Is A Patriot! I Requested Poland to send 28 Fully Equipped Mig 29 to Ukraine! They Arrived at Ramenstein Air Base in Germany! Unfortunately! They had Not been Cleared! Kamala Attended! Who, Where, What, How! Me! My Bad! For Europe and America! She Understood! I Like The Lady! I Love America, Protect Ukraine! Try! Paul 🇺🇲🗽
Are the British Heavily Invested in the Iranian Regime? Their Spooks are Many, and Acting like they have been Taken off Medication or Something! Seriously Strange Behaviour! Anyone Who has Invested in the Iranian Regime KNEW that it was WRONG! Just Payback Time for Israeli's, Americans, Ukranians...Basically The Decent Free World and the, Yet To Be Free Iranian Citizens! America and Israel! Deliver The Goods! Regards! Paul 🇺🇲🇮🇱🌎🌍🌏🗽1
Points at 16,000 unused body bags from Desert Storm. Call me Nostradamus, but the US says every war will be difficult and goes on to win them with rounding error casualties.
Shock and awe I think better than whatever this guy talking about Ukraine going to be win for Russia even if they just keep land they gained right now it’s a win might not be easy win but it is a win
They want and think they need, to control the very fisheries they're killing. All the surrounding areas need them. And China is getting a little hungry lately. People with armies don't starve quietly.
If China moves on Taiwan, there will for sure be thousands of Chinese lost in the Taiwan straight due to Taiwan depending itself. That is not up to the US and the bridge will be crossed the very first day. If Ukraine can deny the black sea to the Russian navy and hasnt allowed russia to gain air superiority, what chances does China have to establish a safe corridor and hold a beachhead? I agree that this will be a long and drawn out process but Taiwan is for sure learning from Ukraine on how to defend itself.
I hope so, sure. But Taiwan is a much smaller country than Ukraine (a little less than a sixteenth the land area) and the Chinese have a lot of land-attack missiles, making it a lot easier for China to do to Taipei and every other city in Taiwan what Russia did to Kharkhiv (and before that, Grozny) even without forcing the strait. If the Chinese also nail Guam on the first day of a no- or minimal-notice war, Taiwan and the US will be in a really bad spot. This is partly why I think prepositioned SSGNs are a necessary part of the strategy, both for counterforce targeting and counter-infrastructure (oil and gas pipelines and refineries, etc). The hands-off approach to the Chinese mainland is a bad one, I think - there's no way to keep this sucker from escalating, we're going to have to starve the industrial beast or they'll out-produce us and win a war of attrition even if their loss exchange ratio is poor.
@@kaesees Lol, advocating for an attack on the Chinese mainland is exactly why you're not in any relevant position of power. Not too educated on the escalation ladder, are we?
@@kaesees It's not hard to choke China's economy and war machine. China imports most of its oil needs, and mostly by sea, and mostly through the Indian Ocean. The US and Royal navies can easily prevent oil from getting to China, which makes war a suicide proposition for China. China can't protect its imports in the blue water. That's more than oil. It's iron, copper, food, fertilizer, and many other commodities that China can't survive without.
China is Ukraine, not Russia. Taiwan is Crimea, not Ukraine. furthermore this underestimate China which has the largest integrated drone force in the world, they have truck that carry 80 drone each. at brigade level, they can launch a 1000 drone within 30 minute, and they have a dozen brigade just for Taiwan. this is not an infantry based army you are fighting, or even a navy. it is a drone force that can cross the seas without need to committing any ground or naval asset. their landing IFV are 3 times as fast as the US marines, they have a missile force of 3000 conventional warhead that is design to exhaust Taiwan air defence. this is a force design to grind down every single system Taiwan has. this is a Chinese version of "Shock and Awe" powered by Chinese manufacturing volume.
25:27 although if the US cannot engage hypersonics…. The PRC would win as there is a high chance if carriers are sunk will the US accept such casualties?
Impressive stuff from impressive men, but, question from the cheap seats: You take a single carrier group and permanently station it between China and Taiwan and then inform the CCP that any violation of Taiwanese waters will be considered an act of war against the United States and yield a disproportionate nuclear retalliation. CCP then has to decide whether to force itself on an independent nation or to take the loss. What did I miss? Coda: You don't meet many revolutionaries or world beaters who want to clean the toilet; rather, those folks tend to be sybarrites who are really enjoying their power and the things that come with it. "Live free or die" is not a quote from an autocrat with 50 mistresses and 100 cars; dictators may well back down.
I don’t like this stupid strategy is to let enemy attack at full blast while restrict yourself from using all your abilities or even just letting your allies do the fighting
Never Slander and Undermine America! America is Back! They Shall Demonstrate and the World Remember! America Stronger and The Free World Safer! You Remember My Initial Reason America? Over To You! Paul 🇺🇲🗽
This is a limited perspective. From the CCP perspective, the problem is that everyone hates them. The Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, India, Vietnam, and more. Regardless of Chinese military capability, the numbers aren't a solvable problem for them, especially considering the general superiority of the US in stuff like sensors and electronic warfare. The only ways for the CCP to realistically 'win' is to both keep everyone else out of the conflict while beating everyone who gets into the conflict, which seems EXTREMELY unlikely considering recent moves against the CCP by all involved.
Our biggest strength is experience. Now, if we can ramp up our logistics and demonstrate our strength and willingness to use it to the world. Just saying no obviously doesn't work.
Our expertise in diplomacy and our capacity in manufacturing has atrophied to the point of possibly loosing the institutionally retained knowledge that was required for these two important factors to succeed. In my opinion China has demonstrated an ability to be quite pragmatic in many areas. Is DC as pragmatic or are we throughly entrenched in the hegemonic high after 1991 that’s kept us in some sort of post-cold war nostalgic psychosis? Bottom line, I fear that the US has a competency problem, in many areas. China? Not certain. It just seems like the US is an “unserious” actor while China is a “serious” actor.
All China needs to do is take and hold Taiwan, then wait it out. Taiwan is so close, half of the people are fine with being part of China, other half will give China trouble until they run out of choices. None of them want to be a proxy for somebody else's plans. China isn't worried about military defeat. Its main worry is economic and technological uncertainty after world is strictly divided, with no way to unify again.
In his recent article for the Naval Institute, Commander Cobb's strategy is risk management in a war between the US and China on Taiwan. He advocates no naval brawls and no attack on China’s mainland. He acknowledges China’s missile capability. The US carrier group should stay outside China’s missile range and launch multi-day air attacks, using undersea assets and irregular forces. The US should also employ long-strike missiles, torpedoes, and SAM. Internal and external resistance groups in China should be supported. Construction battalions will be needed in areas such as Guam after China’s expected missile attacks. He feels time is on the US side because of China’s aging population. Now, my comments: while he took in China’s missile capability, he did not acknowledge how he would handle the US's long-distance logistics and production (missiles and ships) capability. In a war, there will be a blockade around Taiwan and Guam, so how will construction and military materials arrive on those islands? I would argue that time is on China’s side because of the US political system, fickle public sentiments, and lack of a reason to lose blood and treasure on a Taiwan adventure. It will likely be a war waged by politicians, economists, and finance types on sanctions. In any case, everyone will lose.
Our carriers just don’t have the range or magazine depth to cope with China’s land-based IRBMs. Missiles out-range strike aircraft the same way aircraft outranged battleship guns.
A major deficiency that is really chronic is how poor US ship building is. The Chinese are the number 1 shipbuilder in the world, and can probably quickly scale up pretty good submarine production to a solid 10 per year, whereas the US had to just give up on it's 2 subs per year production target. The US merchant marine fleet is just not capable of supplying an Indo-Pacom campaign of hardly any sort... Chinese submarines can run rampage in amongst the 2nd island chain on our logistics ships and we would have no depth of re-supply. Essentially we are 1940s Japan's industrial base vs. China being the US equivalent 1940s industrial base. They can scale military production to 10x and maybe even 20x and we're struggling to scale 2x right now with all kinds of political will in regards Ukrainian, Israeli and Indo-Pacific materiel, supply and intelligence policy, along with bills being passed on the Hill. I think in large part, it's old school submarine warfare along with new-school submarine aeronautical and logistics that's going to win the day, and we can't get beyond 1 sub produced per year. But the American people are hostile to all this war spending, they've had enough of multi-billion dollar supply packages to Ukraine and they'll be tired of it to Israel soon too... Are we really going to be able to add on the weight of the real fight - of supplying proxy forces in East Asia and standing those proxy forces up with much larger, revamped Marine and Ranger forces?.. Of subtle marine/naval interdiction of Chinese strategic cargo ships? Through the Nicoman, Christmas islands, etc.,? People are going without 3 and not even 2 meals a day in America, the food stamps program alone has been gutted over the last 12 years... Are they really going to go for a no butter and all guns policy? Can we really instigate a fight between India and China so that India will take the heat for our clandestine operations against Chinese shipping in the Indian ocean? I think it's all a real long shot. I think our only allies that can really help us scale ship building are Japan, Korea, etc., - which are all subject to Chinese sabotage in their shipbuilding yards.
This sounds like the scenario depicted in Fight Fight by Kevin Miller, although in the book's case, it was an accidental chemical attack on a US warship by the PLA Navy rather than a Taiwan incursion. Two CVNs end up disabled right off the bat, albeit one only temporarily, US air assets on Guam are significantly degraded through ballistic missile attack, and a neutral Japan is pulled into the war following the accidental sinking of a JMSDF capital ship by the PLA. There's some plot armor that keeps most of the US naval assets in action despite deployment of hypersonic ship killers by China, but the threat of economic depression and civil unrest (in both countries) within a matter of weeks force a diplomatic solution well before losses on both sides become crippling. It's plausible
@@JamesRather-s6e There is no doubt that the US Navy was requested to accompany Philippine ships to resupply the almost brand-new PH Coast Guard ship at the Sabina Shoals, which had been there for five months. Clear thinking avoided a potential disaster there. Both sides may posture, but no one wants a fight. Kevin Miller thinks the public demand for cheap goods can change a government's direction, but really, it is a significant stock market crash that will change direction. Economic wars, not hot wars, will be used against nuclear-powered peers and near peers to settle disputes.
allies? in a paper based war game you can, in a real full out war, you better not. Chins is not fool enough to declare war to all the US allies, they will also find all the possible way to push to their favor. Aussie will probably send a ship or two and a few hundred soldiers.... see what happened in Korea peninsula back in 1950s.
14:03 be under no illusions, this is the only way that the US will get involved in combat over Taiwan The USA doesn’t even recognise Taiwan as an independent state! “Though the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we have a robust unofficial relationship” from US Dept of State website
Because the Taiwan Relations Act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability" and "shall maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan".
Check the map again. China is a an Eurasian Continental country. China can easily get its trade, natural resources, raw materials, food, energy by land. That is why China is spending gazillions of dollars on the Belt and Road project so build the infrastructure like the railroads, highways, ports and air ports to link Eurasia to China. All Trade with China can easily be sent by sea to other countries with ports in Eurasia like Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Myanmar and then be sent by land or by rail to China through Eurasia. China is self sufficient in many things already and China can get a lot it natural resources from Russia and Kazakhstan . Russia and Kazakhstan as well as other Central Asian countries have endless amounts of raw materials, energy, food, and fertilizer. Taiwan on the other hand is an Island. Taiwan imports almost 60% of all of its food from abroad to feed its people. 27% of all of Taiwan's food comes from Mainland China. Taiwan imports almost 99% of all of its energy from abroad. If the US blockades China. The US will be blockading itself. Pentagon officials testified before congress that 40% of all semi conductors used in US weapons are manufacturered in China. I would guess that a lot of the other 60% are manufacturered in Taiwan. Furthermore most of the rare earths and processing for those rare earths used to manufacture US weapons comes from China If the US blockades China not only will all US isupermarket shelves will be empty The US won't be able to get the rare earths and semiconductors from China or Taiwan needed to manufacture many of its most sophisticated weapons. There will be a shortage of everything in the United States. Inflation will go through the roof Remember how inflation hit the US after Covid19. If you think that is bad, you have no idea how bad it would be if you blockade China. Plus China could easily blockade all the goods from other Asians countries from heading to the US. The US couldn't even defeat the Houthis blockade of Israel in the red sea. The Houthis have no air force or navy. All they have is $20 000 drones Do you really think the US will be able to break a Chinese Navy blockade of Taiwan.
@grahamstrouse1165 North America produces more food than its current population requires. China/Eurasia produces less food than China's population needs. So in America, prices for toys and electronics quadruple, and in China, famine kills millions.
@@stevebriggs9399No one said it was easy or good for the economy, but they would survive, can’t starve out China, any blockade them to submission, impossible. Can’t do it to Russia, couldn’t do it against Vietnam, North Korea or Germany and Japan in world war 2, to believe it can be done to the worlds largest trading nation and economy is just plane arrogance.
This is all very interesting, but airing this information in a public forum seems idiotic to me. "Hey China, here are our strengths and weaknesses along with the strategies we're contemplating."
A possible way to shorten the war is to offer the leadership of the provinces a way out (legal immunity, inclusion in trade blocs, etc) if they break away from Beijing. Make these offers to regional PLA commanders as well. China has never been as united as we have been told.
Why are we acting this delusional? We have ZERO industrial war making capacity. Almost none. China builds hundreds of ships a year. We build 4. They mass produce missiles, and it takes us a year to make 120 LRASMS. The US needs to accept reality or become the industrial powerhouse once again. We need 2 or 3 new ShipYards and trades aprentice programs to train ship builders. Thats first. Number two is end buying of foriegn steel and ramp back up US steel production. Number 2 is munitions and shell production must quadruple but more importantly we need new factories that produce TNT and RDX explosives and gunpowder. Without these basics we have no chance.
There are,inside the US today, numbers that equate to at least 30-40 battalions of military aged men. They are dispersed throughout the country in every strategic location. In every major population center, nearby every military installation, observing every cell tower, every electrical distribution and generating facility, water distribution plants, food handling and n distribution centers. Does anyone think that should any combat actually break out that these assets would not cause massive disruption in the homeland which would demand all overseas US forces to withdraw and return to defend and assist here? The same can be said for our allies such as Australia, Europe, as well as Japan, Philippines, Singapore, (etc). We ignore New Zealand as they have self destroyed. Should the war start we can also expect NK to target Guam, Japan, Diego Garcia, and Hawaii as China focuses on Taiwan. Nonetheless, US forces will be needed here as defending the US. Given other battalions of internal criminal activity and it won’t matter how many guns civilians have here, they won’t be organized, disciplined, or capable. All the strategic models are absent this clear and open turmoil. This scenario also doesn’t consider the potential of an EMP or two and essentially the war is virtually over as it begins. To believe these forces are not capable is foolish. Thanks to open borders this has become real, but it seems we choose to think in conventional and traditional military terms only,.
That's not even remotely true. The Russians do not currently view themselves as at war with either NATO or the U.S. (although that will change if Biden authorizes the use of U.S. long- range missiles by the Ukrainians to strike targets deep inside Russia). If NATO and the Russians clash directly, losses on both sides will rapidly outpace the ability or the combatants to replace them. With 2- 3 weeks at the outside, one or the other (it doesn't matter who) will begin to visibly lose. That is when WMDs will be used by the prospective loser to redress the balance. So far, both the U.S. and the Russians have been careful to avoid this situation.
@@manilajohn0182The nuclear part is irrelevant, as it is not in either country's interests to use nuclear weapons. The only time two nuclear powers did actively go to war, there was no nuclear exchange.
China cannot invade itself. What is Taiwan's official name? Taiwan's official name is "Republic of China" . Read the Republic of China 's (Taiwan) own constitution. The Republic of China's (Taiwan) own constitution states that Taiwan is a part of China. Not only does Taiwan's own constitution state that Taiwan is a part of China it also calls for the Reunification with Mainland China. Plus under Taiwan's own constitution secessionism is illegal. As a matter of fact up until the late 1980s if you called for Independence of Taiwan from China you would be arrested for sedition and treason in Taiwan. Taiwanese passports, birth certificates, Banks, official money, airlines, and all cabinet Ministrers have the word China in their names or the word China written on them. Even Taiwan's military is named after China. Taiwan's military is named Republic of China Armed forces. The government of Taiwan used to represent the whole of China in the UN security council up until 1972. For decades they claimed to be the legitimate government of the whole of China. There has never been a debate in whether Taiwan is a part of China. Both the government of Republic of China and the People's Republic of China claimed to be the legitimate governments of China. The debate was always on who is the legitimate government of China. Was it the government in the Republic of China thst only had the support of 23. 4 million Chinese governing from Taipei. Or was the government of the People's Republic of China which has the support of 1.4 Billion Chinese governing from Beijing. Some countries, only 9 now, recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) as the legitimate government of China. Other countries including the United States and about 189 other countries recognized the People's Republic of China as the legitimate government of the whole of China. This has always been the debate. No one ever recognized Taiwan as an independent country. Not even Taiwan itself. Up until 1991 Taiwan was building up its armed forces to invade Mainland China. For decades before that they used to carry out raids and air strikes on Mainland China with the goal of getting a foothold on Mainland China and then eventually to retake whole Mainland China. They also used to carry out an insurgency into Mainland China from the jungles of Myanmar until the PLA and the Burmese military defeated them and run them out of there. The Republic of China was founded in Mainland China. The founder of the Republic of China in Taiwan greatest dream was the reunification of CHINA. Before he died his last wish was to have his body sent to the Mainland to be burried there near his ancestors. Mainland China does not have to invade Taiwan. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both a part of China and belong to the Chinese people all 1.5 Billion of them and it is the overwhelming will of the Chinese people that they both should reunite. How that reunification will take place. It's up to them. But if anyone tries to break China apart it will be the biggest mistake they will have ever made in their entire history. It's not going to end up well for them or their people in their home country There is only a small minority of people in the Republic of China (Taiwan) who don't want to break away China. They are mainly of Japanese decent. A legacy left from Japanese colonialism. They are about 2.3 million of them If there are people in the Republic of China who don't want to be a part of China, they are free to pack up all their things and leave China. They can go to Japan and become Japanese if they want so they can live under American hegemony as American tributary vassal state like if that is what they want so much Taiwan is undefendable. Taiwan imports almost 60% of its food to feed its people from abroad. 27% of that food comes directly from the Mainland Taiwan imports almost 99% of its energy. Even the Uranium used to power their nuclear reactors comes from abroad. The PLA does not have to invade Taiwan. All they have to do is do a blockade of the Island of Taiwan All the PLA has to do is launch a blockade of Taiwan and in 2 to 3 weeks Taiwan will have a total energy blackout. All it's industries, factories, cities, homes, vehicles will run out of power and grind to a halt. Their economy will be completely destroyed. In 2 to 3 months maximum they will face famine and starvation. They don't have any natural resources or raw materials. If you think the US can break a PLA blockade of Taiwan remember this The US navy wasn't even able to break a Houthi blockade of Israel in the red sea for 11 months. As a result 80% of all the shipping that used to go to Israel's largest port has ceased. The only thing thst has saved Israel is that the Despicable Egyptian authorities have allowed Israel to use their 3 ports in the Mediterranean Sea which is out of reach of the Houthis. The Houthis don't even have a navy or an Air force. All they have used are old anti ship missiles and $10 000 to $20 000 drones. That alone has been able to chase away multi Billion dollar US warships armed with $1.4 million to $4 million missiles out to sea. As a result the US navy and an entire flotilla of its tributary vassal states couldn't break the Houthis blockade of Israel in the red sea for 11 months. Yet people in the United States still think the US navy could break a PLA blockade of Taiwan. China could literally block out the sun over Taiwan's ports, airports and beaches with drones. China can literally land artillery shells and missiles barrages anywhere into Taiwan fired from its coastal regions. The only way the US could defeat China in a war against Taiwan is by invading Mainland China and occupying the Mainland. Good luck with that one Moreover the Chinese have the ability and the weapons to strike deep and hard into the United States against all American centers industrial, economic, population centers and political centers power in as little as 17 to 18 minutes. China industrial capacity is the largest in the world. Chinas industrial capacity is larger than the next 9 countries combined. China manufacturers 200x more shipping tonnage a year than the United States. China manufactures 12x more steel than the United States. China graduates 7x more Stems than the United States. China's population is 4x larger than the United States. If China goes to war it will mobilize its entire industrial capacity into full scale production. They will out manufacture the United States in all sorts of weapons systems big and small into oblivion They will mobilize tens of millions and tens of millions of men into the PLA.. Plus China will have Russia's support in natural resources, raw materials, additional military industrial manufacturing capacity, energy, food. The United States does not have the industrial capacity to go head to head with China in the long term... It does not have the willing population to be mobilized for a a war of thst scale. The United States is $35 Trillion in debt. You people need to stop dreaming of fighting China over Taiwan. Your politicians and experts mouths are writting cheques your country and your people can't cash.
I hope you have that novel written somewhere and are just pasting it into the comment section. That was a lot of work for something no one is going to read. “China cannot invade itself. “ Sure it can. It’s called civil war. Now that your first point is debunked, I will casually ignore the rest of your monologue.
The dream of a " Short Victorious War "
seldom comes true
Hence why the Russians and Chinese are both masters of attritional warfare and are better suited than the West to play the long game as a result.
The Germans did three of them in the nineteenth century against European opponents. In 1864, 1866, and 1870. But, as you say, it's rare.
@@robgrey6183
Don't go thinking you're Bismarck
@@danjohnston9037 Just dreaming. All OUR wars back to Vietnam seem to be long, and we lose them. I spent some time at Bagram. I still dream about all the stuff we left them.
@@robgrey6183 Yeah, I saw the footage of all those Nam Era APCs , looking real top-heavy for narrow mountain roads. It's like we used the place for a junkyard and left the scrap behind. You dream about that ? You in the scrap business ?
I think the US needs to have reserve industrial capacity to build ‘good enough’ munitions and equipment at low cost and high value……. Ukraine teaches that having high tech capabilities are great if the supply chain can deliver in volume and sustain…. Currently it doesn’t look like it can!
Bingo!
When each American is worth $1 mill “good enough” better not be reduced standard, not that there’s a limit to the value of human life.
That is not going to happen. Wall Street would not fund anything that does not generate quick profit.
Low cost, large numbers of munitions and low cost ways to deliver them will win the war in the Pacific. $3 million LRASMs are great but there is no way to make them fast enough and they are far too expensive, to win a long war against China. We need munitions that cost $100,000 and can deliver 1,000 lb bombs via long, slow glide mechanisms from B2s and B21s. It's one small step up from the tail fin kits that were added to dumb bombs during the Gulf War.
@@User-CT-55555thats not how war works though
None of these guys ever talk about the most important thing in all this: MANUFACTURING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is the nuclear age. Manufacturing would play next to no role at all in a conflict with China because the conflict won't last long enough. Either diplomatic action will result in a rapid cease- fire or it will escalate to a nuclear exchange with a few weeks to a month at the outside. No nation on this planet has the ability to replace the heavy losses of sophisticated equipment or skilled technical personnel which a high- intensity conflict between to Tier 1 powers will produce. The most important thing is to avoid the war in the first place because it could easily spiral out of control into a nuclear exchange.
@@manilajohn0182 U.S. currently has nuclear dominance. But for how long? As long our survival depends on it! The Tier 1 power with the greater disruptive escalation capabilities will deny an adversary kill chain infrastructure stability and workability.
That's because they're delusional
@@manilajohn0182
Even assuming you're correct, being able to present the ability to continue the conflict for an extended period will be vital for securing favourable terms in diplomacy.
@@manilajohn0182blah blah this is what said in Russia and Russia has big chunk of territory and they haven’t used nuclear weapons over USA aid I don’t think just giving ally’s military aid will prevent china military victory. Your coward. If you don’t use weapons fullest extent than you will lose just look at Russia they haven’t been pushed in Ukraine since start of the war they will likely gain territories from Ukraine. What you’re saying just let enemy win. Stupid defeatist talk
No one should think only robots will die on that long war!
The final point regarding allies- hopefully the US can learn from the mistakes of MacArthur. Allies expect to be treated as equals, not subordinates. They have their own doctrines, political situations, strategic schedules, and of course their own pride and belief that they are the greatest nation in the world.
Let Japan go island-hopping with their cavalry, let the Korean artillery turn the battlefield into a parking lot, and any questions about what Australian infantry do in the jungle can probably wait until the post-war tribunals.
There are a few points which seem to have been overlooked.
First, and foremost - industrial capacity.
In WW2 and every conflict since, the biggest US advantage was industrial capacity.
This advantage now belongs to China.
Drone swarms to create the hellscape scenarios all require a massive industrial base. Ditto hypersonics, missiles, shells, etc.
The simple fact is that China will be able to outbuild the U.S. on a massive scale.
This has serious implications in a long conflict where losses need replacement.
Specifically, any conflict is likely to begin with the U.S. at a numerical material disadvantage and the disadvantage will only grow as losses mount because China’s replacement rate is likely to be higher.
Secondly, there seems to be an assumption that the U.S. will be confronting China alone.
But what happens if China has allies? Or, what if the U.S. commitments to allies require the U.S. to spread their forces?
Specifically, what if the U.S. is spread out around the world, containing Russia in Europe and the Arabs in the Middle East and a third conflict in Africa?
Would the U.S. even be able to focus enough force to pose a credible threat to China?
Finally, economic and logistics warfare were mentioned.
Specifically, mining and embargoing the Chinese.
But, what happens if the Chinese also strikes at the U.S. logistics train, and deploys drone and manned submarines to attack and blockade U.S. ports and shipping?
Is the USN large enough to provide rear area security while fighting China let alone a scenario where there are multiple conflicts at the same time?
So, while all of the strategies mentioned can be used to confront China, I also suggest that the Chinese can also use the same strategies on the US.
The result will probably be two nations driven to economic ruin at the least; a nuclear holocaust at the worst.
I would suggest that the stakes in this game of nations is now too high to even consider any direct confrontation between great powers and that if great powers don’t learn to co-exist, the alternative is mutual destruction at the least; the end of the human race at the worst.
So, for the sake of all humanity, please learn to co-exist.
Industrial capacity is not a factor because the conflict won't last long enough conventionally. It will either end quickly via diplomatic negotiation and a cease- fire, or it will escalate to a nuclear exchange.
Human history shows that cultures with diametrically opposed values and beliefs cannot peacefully coexist.
@@manilajohn0182It will not escalate into a nuclear exchange unless the US attempts to invade China or if the 3 Gorges Dam is destroyed. Both of which are very unlikely to happen.
@@manilajohn0182 Yes, they cannot sustain it, but provide reasoning as to why that would lead to nuclear escalation. Not being able to sustain a war and nuclear escalation are two very distinct things, and one does not have to lead to the other. In fact, it has a very low chance of leading to nuclear escalation.
@@voidtempering8700 I never said that such a conflict 'would' lead to a nuclear exchange. I said that either diplomatic intervention and cease fire, or escalation to a nuclear exchange would result. Provide proof that it has a very low chance of leading to nuclear escalation.
This is all very sensible. Unfortunately, it really seems that the USN lacks the number of ships to even pursuit a denial strategy, much less a longer attritional conflict.
We stand a good chance if our allies are with us
@@CyanTeamProductionsour "allies" aren't in any position to help, they've been relying on the USA since the cold war ended.
we have allies, and rapid dragon, submarines, and more.
Right. We sold all that to the Chinese 30 years ago
@@CyanTeamProductionsTrue, but are they?
Will Japan put on a bulls eye just to save Taiwan, they will face missiles over Tokyo, not U.S. over Washington, will South Korea risk an invasion from North in order to support Taiwan?
To ask someone that live in the neighbourhood to die because an American world order will not give an obvious answer.
Awesome interview. Thank you Commander for you valuable insight! I do believe that United States is weak at reconstituting our military forces at this time. Right now, I feel we only get one chance to get this right. If not.............who knows.
US failed at recruitment stage, not to mention a full scale war against China.
The U.S. Navy needs to increase its AA gun and short-range small missile interceptor platforms on every ship in order to defend against drones. This is esp. critical for the USNS ships that are practically defenseless and are as valuable as a CV.
The USN also needs to both increase the hulls for CV's, USNS and also a new class of ship that would be dedicated to Air-Defense in order to escort and protect all of our resupply ships, like a frigate size.
The amount of CIWIS systems on all USN ships needs to be doubled or even tripled.
Excellent and informative! I'm happy to see that we have capable and intelligent people taking this existential threat seriously. Let's remember that military matters are only one aspect of the war that is currently being waged. We don't seem to take the other equally important aspects as seriously or even recognize and try to understand them. If we want to prevent the war, we should work on this critical aspect. Kinetic warfare is the very last part of a long war and should be avoided by fully understanding the enemy. Because they're doing that in their preparation already and it's our true weakness.
In 2023, China produced almost 9 millions EVs, and expect to top 11 millions in 2024.
China control 70% of global Drones productions.
If China switch to War Economic, thats easily 11 millions drones per year, or even push to 22 millions a year.
Not to mention S.Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand will under massive drone attacks.
By supply only one million cheap attack drones to Middle East will wipe out Israels defence system, and draw US/Nato away from Far East.
How long a war in the South China Sea becomes depends on how many ships the US navy loses at the outset.
This is going to be a "come-as-you-are" war, there's no waiting around for five years for Newport News Shipbuilding to replace the CVNs we lose, one at a time, and America's shipbuilding industry today is so anemic that it's pointless to count on a World War II-style massive fleet buildup over the course of the war.
In a high-intensity conflict, I doubt we'd be able to replace our losses, not to mention build up the fleet. And the fleet is already too small as it is.
At the outset of any conflict with China, "force preservation" is not going to be a mission consideration for the navy; it's going to be the mission itself, "Operation Sauve Qui Peut." At best we'll probably end up with a new defensive line that traces from Australia through Hawaii and up to Alaska. I doubt any base facilities will remain operational beyond that, including Guam.
Counting on our allies in the region is like counting on your four-year-old son to help you mow the lawn. They don't have meaningful forces to help us out, and they're going to take massive losses from the start that they can't replace. Australia, South Korea, and Japan are going to be hard-pressed to preserve themselves. Everybody else is a joke.
Once we complete the bug-out from the Western Pacific, we'll probably have to rely on a distant blockade to try to choke off China from strategic resources, particularly oil, while using long-range aircraft like B1s, B2s, B-52s, and B21s to wage attrition warfare against China's surface fleet and to attack its naval bases while our SSNs duke it out with China's submarines.
Only after that attrition effort achieves considerable success could we consider risking what remaining CVNs we have left, reinforced by drone ships - which is all we might be able to build in the time frame required - on any kind of offensive operations to retake lost territory.
The USA went overboard after the Cold War, cashing in on "The Peace Dividend." We don't have the industrial base to wage a war like we did in World War II, even though we're probably going to have to replay War Plan Orange from that conflict. Our only hope will be to inflict even heavier losses on the Chinese, to the point where they attrit even worse than we do.
Someone with a brain, thank you!
There can be no long war. One of the combatants will begin to lose conventionally after a few weeks to a month as losses in sophisticated equipment and skilled personnel rapidly exceed the ability of either nation to replace them. If diplomatic intervention fails to end the conflict by that time, escalation to a nuclear exchange of unknown magnitude will take place.
@manilajohn0182 you sound like the commentators when Ukraine kicked off. That was supposed to be over in 2 weeks... 2 years ago.
@@Squirl513 That's because you misunderstand the two situations. They are not the same. The conflict in Ukraine is one between a nuclear power and a second- ranked power in which neither the status of the Russian Federation nor the United States as a great power is at risk. That of the Russians isn't because Ukraine lacks the ability to conquer the Russian Federation, while that of the U.S. isn't because they're not directly involved in the fighting. A conflict between the U.S. and China would be a clash between to major nuclear powers which neither could afford to lose on the global stage. The size and sophistication of their armed forces means high casualties over a short period for both which neither can possible replace quickly. The prospective loser will resort to use of NBC weaponry to restore the balance.
@@manilajohn0182 just because a conflict goes nuclear does not mean that it will end.
I fundamentally disagree with the first sentence of your first comment.
Love your content!I served on the USS SARATOGA CV -60!
the US wants the Kantai Kessen just like Japan in WW II. Even when it does succeed like at Trafalgar it doesn't end the war; France didn't surrender the first time until 7 years after they're fleet was beaten.
That is not at all what anyone is saying here
@Saberjet1950 No. The US rejects Kantai Kessen, which was a gross misunderstanding of Mahan.
The US wants to deter China by making sure China understands it will NOT be short war.
Home by Christmas….
What if the enemy doesn't care about the cost? What if they have three drones for every defender on Taiwan? Four for every? Five?
Nice to hear such common sense in the strategic thinking, bravo Tinkles!
A Chinese general wrote the most essential treatise on the “art” of war thousands of years ago; convince the enemy he has lost before he acts. America’s leaders once understood deterrence, they bet all our lives on MAD. What has been forgotten is the critical role a society’s socio-economic legitimacy plays in sustaining the high level of political morale essential for translating deterrence into a sustainable strategy in the face of human nature. I suggest reading Amaranthine: How to Create a Regenerative Civilization Using Artificial Intelligence. PS: I was an advisor to Estep and Litman
Undersea drones to protect undersea fiber cables.
Just build the sensory apparatus into a sheath/cover and push/pull it along the existing line. Undersea security camera
War is war you can never limit these things
Remember,the're calm before destruction
Insightful podcast thank you. Comments are interesting… several overtly political and a few from the CCP. I’m an American person without an axe to grind. My two cents: Blockade of China will be required. And we’d better start learning to build ships fast again because they sure can now.
That’s something we can’t learn overnight. It will take months if not a good year until we find our footing
When losses in both sophisticated equipment and skilled personnel cause one side to begin losing in a few weeks or a month, what do you believe will take place then?
Check the map again. China is a an Eurasian Continental country.
China can easily get its trade, natural resources, raw materials, food, energy by land. That is why China is spending gazillions of dollars on the Belt and Road project so build the infrastructure like the railroads, highways, ports and air ports to link Eurasia to China.
All Trade with China can easily be sent by sea to other countries with ports in Eurasia like Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Myanmar and then be sent by land or by rail to China through Eurasia.
China is self sufficient in many things already and China can get a lot it natural resources from Russia and Kazakhstan .
Russia and Kazakhstan as well as other Central Asian countries have endless amounts of raw materials, energy, food, and fertilizer.
Taiwan on the other hand is an Island.
Taiwan imports almost 60% of all of its food from abroad to feed its people.
27% of all of Taiwan's food comes from Mainland China.
Taiwan imports almost 99% of all of its energy from abroad.
If the US blockades China. The US will be blockading itself.
Pentagon officials testified before congress that 40% of all semi conductors used in US weapons are manufacturered in China.
I would guess that a lot of the other 60% are manufacturered in Taiwan.
Furthermore most of the rare earths and processing for those rare earths used to manufacture US weapons comes from China
If the US blockades China not only will all US isupermarket shelves will be empty
The US won't be able to get the rare earths and semiconductors from China or Taiwan needed to manufacture many of its most sophisticated weapons.
There will be a shortage of everything in the United States.
Inflation will go through the roof
Remember how inflation hit the US after Covid19.
If you think that is bad, you have no idea how bad it would be if you blockade China.
Plus China could easily blockade all the goods from other Asians countries from heading to the US.
The US couldn't even defeat the Houthis blockade of Israel in the red sea.
The Houthis have no air force or navy.
All they have is $20 000 drones
Do you really think the US will be able to break a Chinese Navy blockade of Taiwan.
The worst part is the only way to Defend Taiwan will be a massive commitment of direct engagement, and like they said, that will lead to escalation.
It will be to US advantage to hope for a short war, not China's. The differential in manufacturing power is too insane
I remember when the Russo-Ukraine war started. People were saying it would be over in a few weeks. Then I saw civilians beating back BMPs with Molotov Cocktails. I also remember thinking if the Ukrainians were that determined, this war would go on and on and on.
A more appropriate title should be, No One Should Think the War Can be Won.....Neither the US, Russia or China can afford to lose in a conventional war.....Therefore, it is delusional to think the loser will not resort to nuclear weapons as a last resort....and MAD....
Good point.
There are three super powers in the world, Russia, China and USA.
No one can win a war in other super powers back yard. Period.
US has no chance to beat China in Far East, just like US/Nato can not push Russian troops out of Ukraine.
Conventional wars dont typically end like world war 2 with total occupation of your enemy and unconditional surrender, most are ended through settlements historically, not that i disagree just an observation
What? If you use nuckear weapons youve allready lost so rationaly it wouldnt, but ultimatly no one xan know for sure
@@giftzwerg7345I'm not sure why that follows - lost according to who? And by what metric?
All wars are a form of escalation competition, whereby both parties seek to inflict proportionally greater losses on the other whilst avoiding what they consider unacceptable losses for themselves, by escalating means. The victor is the party that achieves escalation dominance, by demonstrating their ability to reach a higher rung on the ecalation ladder, which would allow them to inflict unacceptable losses on their opponent, whilst not suffering such losses themselves.
For example, the US defeated Japan in WWII by demonstrating escalation dominance through the use of nuclear weapons (or, arguably, even earlier, through its strategic bombing campaign).
Nuclear weapons are a guarantee against strategic defeat in conventional warfare for the precise reason that there are no escalation steps beyond nuclear war. You cannot top strategic nuclear weapons, because such weapons are already capable of destroying entire nations outright (if not the entire World), which unequivocally meets the threshold of "unacceptable losses" for any party.
Any nuclear weapons state is rationally obliged to use nuclear weapons in the eventuality that they face strategic defeat by conventional means, in order to render their opponent's escalation dominance in conventional war obsolete. The conventionally stronger opponent then has the choice of escalating to nuclear war, or giving up a conventional war.
The rational conclusion to this situation is that nuclear weapons states should never rationally go to war, because they know that the escalation cycle will inevitably end in nuclear weapons use and either conventional stalemate, or nuclear Mutually Assured Destruction.
Sadly, rationality doesn't always prevail.
Logistics and industrial capacity!
We need more cheap ordnance, too.
It isnt just foolhardy to think of this war as being a short enterprise. Its DANGEROUS. A short war can easily be viewed as having more positives than negatives.
Focus on the reality of a Long, bloody, drawn out war and you do better calculus and decision making.
A direct long, drawn- out conventional war between two major nuclear- armed powers is a fallacy. None of them would have the ability to replace their losses of sophisticated equipment and skilled technical personnel in a timely manner. Within a few weeks to a month at the outside, one of them would begin to lose the conflict conventionally. The prospective loser would then resort to the use of one or more NBC weapons to redress the balance. The idea of a short war that's not halted by diplomatic intervention is dangerous because it would quickly escalate to a nuclear exchange. The war in Ukraine is not a viable example because there are not two nuclear powers in a direct clash there.
@@manilajohn0182You are also doing the false assumption of assuming that either side would use NBC or nuclear weaponry.
Provide proof that this is not only a possibility, but would be a first choice if they begin taking losses. Neither country's doctrine allows such thing.
@@voidtempering8700 I'm not required to provide proof that either side would use NBC or nuclear weaponry any more than you're required to provide proof that either side would not. The fact remains that the U.S. is not bound by a NFU pledge, and while China is, laws are silent in time of war. Having said the above, note that I've never said that either nation 'would' use NBC weaponry. I've said that there can be no long, drawn- out conventional war between two major nuclear- armed powers. Their inability to replace high losses in both skilled manpower and sophisticated equipment over a short period makes that impossible. One of the combatants will begin to conventionally lose after a few weeks to a month at the outside, at which point either diplomatic intervention will lead to a cease- fire or escalation to a nuclear exchange will result. The reason for this is that neither the United States nor China could afford to lose a direct clash between the two nations- and neither will accept such a defeat without using the weaponry available in their arsenals.
@@voidtempering8700 I'm not required to provide proof any more than you're required to agree with what I've said. The U.S. is not bound by a NFU pledge, and while China is, laws are silent in time of war. I've never said that either nation 'would' use NBC weaponry. I've said that there can be no long, drawn- out conventional war between two major nuclear- armed powers. Their inability to replace losses in both skilled manpower and sophisticated equipment makes that impossible. One of the combatants will begin to conventionally lose after a few weeks to a month at the outside, at which point either diplomatic intervention will lead to a cease- fire or escalation to a nuclear exchange will result.
@@voidtempering8700 UA-cam is eating my posts. I'm not required to provide proof any more than you're required to agree with what I've said. The U.S. is not bound by a NFU pledge, and while China is, laws are silent in time of war. I've never said that either nation 'would' use NBC weaponry. I've said that there can be no long, drawn- out conventional war between two major nuclear- armed powers. Their inability to replace losses in both skilled manpower and sophisticated equipment makes that impossible. One of the combatants will begin to conventionally lose after a few weeks to a month at the outside, at which point either diplomatic intervention will lead to a cease- fire or escalation to a nuclear exchange will result.
With our diminishing national resources, we will need to pick and choose which conflicts to involve ourselves in. We can no longer afford to be world policeman.
24:25 not just a common picture for the joint force, common picture for all the allies
Everyone thinks that war is a thing, an act to be done and forgotten.
It is a living breathing animal, and it has a mind all its own.
Assuming you can control it at all, determine the length of its existence or the ferocity of its many rampages is the height of human hubris.
War is hell.
ALL military service schools (junior & senior), and war colleges should understand and teach the lessons of the Ukraine war....and internalize that it's not worth starting another one! Modern warfare has changed exponentially. 3/4 of our current weapons platforms are now obsolete.
Your sponsor:
Leveraging emerging buzzwords for paradigm changing AI platform performance.
what about "forward" US Navy bases? How about constructing "floating" dry docks to be able to repair warships closer to theater of operations? We are a representative republic, not a democracy.
Constitutional Federal Republic.
More ships, destroyers, and more troops and the supply chain.
Maybe its time to bail out Intel first, another few billion of Tax payers money. 😁
back in 1974 i had a college roommate that was in ROTC , and he had a subscription to " army times " . one issue did a story on the " after action report " on the 1973 israel/ arab war. the conclusion was that after all the " high tech " is all used up , what remained was the individual soldier , and how MOTIVATED he was to survive and continue to bring the war to the enemy. high tech is great , but if the manufacture / supply chain is interrupted then all you have left is the soldier in the fox hole. i wonder just HOW MOTIVATED the american soldier will be , and the american public when large losses are announced from a foreign battlefield.
Neither Israel or arab nations had the industry or technological capability to replace their loss (in 1973 at least). Vast difference here.
The problem the US would face in a war with China is that it would spread vertically and horizontally. It would not remain confined to the South China Sea and Taiwan Straits. It is easy to imagine the war spreading to the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere. Furthermore, the United States no longer has the industrial and logistical capability to support fleets and armies fighting on multiple fronts. America is no longer the industrial, scientific, and technological powerhouse it was at the height of the Apollo Project in the late 1960s. Due to nearly forty years of outsourcing, the US has been hollowed out industrially. It can be said that the US is rotting from the inside out. It is an empire in steep decline. If wars are won on the factory floor rather than on the battlefield the US would lose badly. For example, the Chinese shipbuilding capacity is nearly two hundred times that of the US. The Chinese also outproduce the US in steel, aluminum, and in other crucial economic categories. Furthermore, due to the failures of the American educational system, the Chinese are graduating nearly five million STEM graduates a year, which is nearly eight times the number of STEM graduates that the US is graduating in the same period. Although, the US Navy currently has a significant advantage in operational experience and technology over the Chinese, especially when it comes to the US Navy’s submarine and carrier force, over time this advantage will become a wasting asset as the Chinese gain expertise in those areas. It is also worth noting that the US relies on the Indians and Chinese for its supply of high-explosives and some of its major weapon components. If the US ever gets into a war with China, access to the resources will dry up overnight. To cap it off, in a war with China the Americans will have to conduct operations in China’s backyard, which would stretch American logistics to a breaking point. In short, in a battle of production, the Chinese will be able to easily outproduce the US in every important category of weapon. The combination of China’s industrial advantage and the fact that the Chinese will be operating close to their industrial and logistic centers will present the US with an insuperable problem. Due to the constraint of distance, the US might not be able to sustain high-intensity operations over the long haul. It is also hard to imagine the US being able to reconstitute its forces due to its lack of industrial capacity. We can readily observe this problem being played out in the present. In the current war in Ukraine, the US has drawn down its stock of high-tech weapons. It is struggling to keep Ukraine supplied from current production. High-tech weapons like the Patriot anti-aircraft missile system, JSSM cruise missile, and HIMAR tactical multi-launch rockets have proven difficult to build in numbers. Even ramping up the production of Stinger, MANPADs and Javelin anti-tank missiles have proven difficult due to shortages in skilled workers and a lack of factory space. In addition, when it comes to artillery production the US will be hard-pressed to produce 50,000 shells per month. The Russian Federation, in contrast, can produce up to 150,000 per month. This fact highlights one of the major flaws in America’s current economic system. Unlike the Chinese and Russians, the US simply lacks the surplus capacity to expand its production like it was able to do in World War Two.
Furthermore, although the Chinese population is aging, the Chinese still outnumber the US by four to one. In a long attritional struggle, these numbers will ultimately play against the US. Taking all of these different factors into consideration, the US would lose a long war of attrition with China.
Not many decades ago the United States produced half the steel in the world. Now it is China that produces half the steel in the world.
The United States produces 1/12th the steel that China does, and that statistic is replicated in many other industrial categories.
1) Dude, white-space. Nobody is reading that whole wall of text.
2) Nobody who matters reads the UA-cam comments section anyway.
@@zacnewman7140
One of my favorite forms of recreation.
I even read YOUR comment!
@@zacnewman7140 You are right. I just like to practice my writing skills. Occasionally someone will read what I have written and make an informed comment. But most people don’t have the brain cells to digest a piece of text that is more than two sentences long. Dancing dog videos are more their style.
@SeattlePioneer ok, that's all well and good, but are you working anywhere remotely close to the military decision-making apparatus? "People who matter" are the ones who are making long-term strategic and purchasing decisions for the Navy and Marines. Those people are the subject experts, they _should_ know better than to comment here for OPSEC reasons and they also know anyone posting here _doesn't_ know enough to be worth paying attention to.
Neoliberal business practices have offshored our mighty industrial complex.
We cannot win any conflict with on- demand boutique solutions produced in low quantities.
What happened to the US mighty capacity to supply both civilian and military crisis?
We used to stockpile food, machinery, sundries, and supplies. Years ago there were contingency plans and logistics to address these issues.
Private corporate domain has gutted our power only to manufacture crisis and sell the solutions.
Rand doesn't ever get things right!
As of twelve minutes in, I don't think the war in question will happen unless it's going to be short. If the US strategy is to deny China a successful crossing of the straits, that requires a level of forward presence that China would be able to recognize. If the US has that strategy, but doesn't maintain that presence, that means we don't have the necessary resolve to undertake a long war. Stationing a carrier battle group nearby is easy; finding the resolve to escalate instead of accepting fait-mostly-accompli is hard. In any scenario where China would begin the war, they would be able to provide some sort of face-saving measure for the US. Maybe provoke a crisis somewhere in Africa where the US would have significant interests at stake, then invade Taiwan, then concede whatever's at stake in Africa in return for US acquiescence to Chinese control over Taiwan. Whatever would help us pretend we hadn't lost.
China is in a fundamentally different position from Russia. China is a superpower; Russia is barely a regional power. China wants to adjust the status quo, to get from a position of advantage to one of greater advantage; Russia wants to destroy the status quo, to get from a position of terminal decline to anything else. China's hegemonic plans are a matter of existing facts on the ground, whose ongoing management imposes daily reality checks; Russia's aspirations to empire are a malignant fantasy that can inflate with no tether to reality at all.
On the other hand, if our strategy is to try to convince China that we have the resolve for a long slog with devastating repercussions on both superpowers, that basically invites them to call our bluff. Even if we really do have the resolve, it will still look like a bluff. You can see across the water to observe forward force deployment. You can't see into the future to observe how the public will react to a massive decrease in standards of living. Never base your escalatory ladder on threats that your adversary can't evaluate, unless you're just bluffing about something inconsequential. And never do that, if the ladder reaches all the way to catastrophe.
Many in the world are depending on the USA - or they will be soon.
The United States should abandon the American World Empire and be the United States of America again.
Quit being the policeman of the world.
22:13 except the PRC is already a decade ahead of the West in this regard
Why would we support dangerous interference around the world when it's not any of our business nor in our interest in many ways?
I started thinking the following about a decade ago, as China started to move back towards more repression and proved wrong the so-called experts of the '90's that promised that as we outsourced more to China, it would enable their middle class to have more political say. I was not concerned about China in the next 30+ years, I was concerned about them in the next 10-15 years which is around now. There was no way their high economic growth was going to continue; that was in part due to moving a large population out of peasantry into being members of a productive economy.
It was obvious, that eventually cheap wages would come to an end and their economy would flatten out and even experience periods of decline. They had created too many domestic issues with rampant corruption, their lack of marriage age woman (legacy of the 1 child policy), and creating an environmental nightmare that is effecting the long term health of their population. I think people will tolerate the increasing repression if their lives are improving, but not if their lives are only getting worse. Assuming the communists stay in power, they were going to have to start to buy off the masses and shift money from the military to domestic programs.
The issue will be the period where things go bad but their military is still large. Economically, we have started to see this since Covid hit, but which has accelerated in the past 2 years as more and more foreign companies are moving out of China for political and economic considerations and exports drop. China's current economic situation is looking poor in the near term and if something doesn't change, I question the long term. My concern is we may be approaching that point where the leadership in China may start to consider the old adage about "what we need is a short victorious war to distract the masses." And looking at the thought of their military having to shrink, they will be in the mindset of "Use it or lose it." Taiwan being the most obvious target. The next few years will be interesting.
CDR Cobb looks objectivly at the situation in the western Pacific. The way its been is NOT sustainable. The variables in the equation have changed. I keep visualizing WalMart's shelves in the aftermath of such a war, empty. The people in the USA are woefully prepaired for empty shelves much less the pain of a hot war. The commander is right, it would not be limited to Tiawan, it couldn't be - that's wishful thinking. "In for a dime in for a dollar" an old saying meaning you better not try doing it on the cheap.
I agree with Tinkles in the last half about our strengths and weaknesses, but I'm afraid Rand is right about the first half... We absolutely cannot, and should not cede the initiative to our enemies. Especially one as untested and ill prepared as China. THE WORST thing we can do, is give them time to fire up their industry and give their soldiers and sailors time to slowly gain experience and confidence by fighting anything less than a swift, crushing defeat.
We have this terrible habit of thinking that the rest of the world thinks likes us... China is a dictatorship, dictatorships do not see dialogue and soft attacks as de-escalatory, they see it as weakness, a weakness they can take advantage of, and so they will. If there is a point where we choose to give China an offramp to de-escalation, it needs to come in the form of a generous offer of peace along with a promise of the hell that will await them should they refuse that very generous offer, and we MUST follow up on that promise if it comes down to it, because the rest of the world is watching.
Dictatorships are notorious for both overestimating their own capabilities, as well as underestimating that of their enemies. That means anything less than swift, overwhelming force will not achieve deterrence, so let's prepare to not only deliver that, but do so confidently. The consequence of not intimidating and achieving deterrence equals this escalating all the way to nuclear as Xi will think he's got this in the bag because he's tougher or whatever other macho bs dictators love telling themselves.
Let's not make the Chinese 10ft tall like we did the Soviets. The CCP is fundamentally broken and corrupt, that gives us an insane advantage both technologically and in the competence of our military. They will always be broken and corrupt for as long as they remain a single party dictatorship. It's time for us to be confident in ourselves again.
CMDR Cobb should read not only The Great Wall at Sea (a bit outdated) but also read the most recent papers written by Bernard Cole, Capt. USN Ret. Cole teaches at the War College and from what I've read of his papers would have a different outlook. Too many reasons to get into for a 'Comment' but China has many issues to overcome before it could be more than a Paper Tiger.
"Great Wall at Sea" desperately needs a new edition. I read it in the early 2000's.
Towable magazine ships and VLS tenders
South Korea can do a hull cheaper than the US can at at least the same quality , then get it fitted out in the US where they excel
We’re already capped at max production for land artillery munitions. In fact we are at a low reserve levels since aiding Ukraine.
There “is no manufacturing” in N America anymore. At least nothing meaningful.
China knows they'll face major military loss and are somewhat timid to start a war right now especially when their economy isn't so hot and are having other issues going on inside the country
An interesting point that you touched on here is how the Chinese people would react to losing a significant number of servicemen in the South China sea, and it brought to mind a recent Perun episode about how different societies react differently to a given deterent.
Shi Zeng Ping doesn't care about the outrage of his population. The CCP is already maintaining their power in China by the threat or application of violence, they offered the carrot of prosperity if the commoners stay away from politics but the stick of violent suppression has always been there.
In the US losing 100,000 soldiers in a confict in Taiwan would probably be the end of the current administration. In China losing a million men in the same conflict is probably a shrug and another round of conscription.
What I'm getting at is that you can't ask "how would we react to that?" and figure on China reacting in a similar way.
I suspect China will try to gain a tactical advantage by masking their initial invasion approach as commercial vessels. They have already made a lot of their commercial transports dual use, so I suspect that large commercial transport vessels will carry troops close to Taiwan, maybe all the way into port, before starting hostilities.
Taiwan has to make strict rules, backed up by a willingness to open fire, if those rules are violated.
We will lose the attritional part. The Chinese will take anything that floats and overwhelm any high cost/tech reaction we have. I don’t see us keeping air superiority in order to fly in US soldiers.
Thanks to Obama for his wise ass comment to Romney regarding a 600 ship navy
Therefore Israel Need Some Assistance!
Leviathan, Please Ensure!
Awesome!
Paul
🇺🇲🗽
Kamala Is A Patriot!
I Requested Poland to send 28 Fully Equipped Mig 29 to Ukraine!
They Arrived at Ramenstein Air Base in Germany!
Unfortunately!
They had Not been Cleared!
Kamala Attended!
Who, Where, What, How!
Me!
My Bad!
For Europe and America!
She Understood!
I Like The Lady!
I Love America, Protect Ukraine!
Try!
Paul
🇺🇲🗽
Are the British Heavily Invested in the Iranian Regime?
Their Spooks are Many, and Acting like they have been Taken off Medication or Something!
Seriously Strange Behaviour!
Anyone Who has Invested in the Iranian Regime KNEW that it was WRONG!
Just Payback Time for Israeli's, Americans, Ukranians...Basically The Decent Free World and the, Yet To Be Free Iranian Citizens!
America and Israel!
Deliver The Goods!
Regards!
Paul
🇺🇲🇮🇱🌎🌍🌏🗽1
Points at 16,000 unused body bags from Desert Storm. Call me Nostradamus, but the US says every war will be difficult and goes on to win them with rounding error casualties.
Hegemony never has been, and never will be permanent..
Shock and awe I think better than whatever this guy talking about Ukraine going to be win for Russia even if they just keep land they gained right now it’s a win might not be easy win but it is a win
US couldn't even maintain 1 aircraft carrier group in SCS while Houthi attacked the ships in the red Sea.
They want and think they need, to control the very fisheries they're killing. All the surrounding areas need them. And China is getting a little hungry lately.
People with armies don't starve quietly.
If China moves on Taiwan, there will for sure be thousands of Chinese lost in the Taiwan straight due to Taiwan depending itself. That is not up to the US and the bridge will be crossed the very first day.
If Ukraine can deny the black sea to the Russian navy and hasnt allowed russia to gain air superiority, what chances does China have to establish a safe corridor and hold a beachhead? I agree that this will be a long and drawn out process but Taiwan is for sure learning from Ukraine on how to defend itself.
I hope so, sure. But Taiwan is a much smaller country than Ukraine (a little less than a sixteenth the land area) and the Chinese have a lot of land-attack missiles, making it a lot easier for China to do to Taipei and every other city in Taiwan what Russia did to Kharkhiv (and before that, Grozny) even without forcing the strait. If the Chinese also nail Guam on the first day of a no- or minimal-notice war, Taiwan and the US will be in a really bad spot.
This is partly why I think prepositioned SSGNs are a necessary part of the strategy, both for counterforce targeting and counter-infrastructure (oil and gas pipelines and refineries, etc). The hands-off approach to the Chinese mainland is a bad one, I think - there's no way to keep this sucker from escalating, we're going to have to starve the industrial beast or they'll out-produce us and win a war of attrition even if their loss exchange ratio is poor.
@@kaesees Lol, advocating for an attack on the Chinese mainland is exactly why you're not in any relevant position of power. Not too educated on the escalation ladder, are we?
@@kaesees It's not hard to choke China's economy and war machine. China imports most of its oil needs, and mostly by sea, and mostly through the Indian Ocean. The US and Royal navies can easily prevent oil from getting to China, which makes war a suicide proposition for China. China can't protect its imports in the blue water. That's more than oil. It's iron, copper, food, fertilizer, and many other commodities that China can't survive without.
TAIWANESE WILL NOT FIGHT AND DIE FOR AMERICA AND JAPAN...MOST OF DDP LEADERS HV JAPANESE BLOOD NOT EVEN TRUE TAIWANESE...😮😮😮
China is Ukraine, not Russia. Taiwan is Crimea, not Ukraine.
furthermore this underestimate China which has the largest integrated drone force in the world, they have truck that carry 80 drone each. at brigade level, they can launch a 1000 drone within 30 minute, and they have a dozen brigade just for Taiwan. this is not an infantry based army you are fighting, or even a navy. it is a drone force that can cross the seas without need to committing any ground or naval asset. their landing IFV are 3 times as fast as the US marines, they have a missile force of 3000 conventional warhead that is design to exhaust Taiwan air defence. this is a force design to grind down every single system Taiwan has. this is a Chinese version of "Shock and Awe" powered by Chinese manufacturing volume.
25:27 although if the US cannot engage hypersonics…. The PRC would win as there is a high chance if carriers are sunk will the US accept such casualties?
Impressive stuff from impressive men, but, question from the cheap seats: You take a single carrier group and permanently station it between China and Taiwan and then inform the CCP that any violation of Taiwanese waters will be considered an act of war against the United States and yield a disproportionate nuclear retalliation. CCP then has to decide whether to force itself on an independent nation or to take the loss. What did I miss? Coda: You don't meet many revolutionaries or world beaters who want to clean the toilet; rather, those folks tend to be sybarrites who are really enjoying their power and the things that come with it. "Live free or die" is not a quote from an autocrat with 50 mistresses and 100 cars; dictators may well back down.
Talk about defense Taiwan freedom , how about Americans force go to defend Myanmar freedom ?
I don’t like this stupid strategy is to let enemy attack at full blast while restrict yourself from using all your abilities or even just letting your allies do the fighting
Never Slander and Undermine America!
America is Back!
They Shall Demonstrate and the World Remember!
America Stronger and The Free World Safer!
You Remember My Initial Reason America?
Over To You!
Paul
🇺🇲🗽
This is a limited perspective. From the CCP perspective, the problem is that everyone hates them. The Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, India, Vietnam, and more. Regardless of Chinese military capability, the numbers aren't a solvable problem for them, especially considering the general superiority of the US in stuff like sensors and electronic warfare. The only ways for the CCP to realistically 'win' is to both keep everyone else out of the conflict while beating everyone who gets into the conflict, which seems EXTREMELY unlikely considering recent moves against the CCP by all involved.
Our biggest strength is experience. Now, if we can ramp up our logistics and demonstrate our strength and willingness to use it to the world. Just saying no obviously doesn't work.
Experience in waging a naval and air war in the pacific?
When did USA get that experience?
The majority of our experience comes from fighting guerilla fighters from poor third world nations hardly worthwhile experience.
The hypersonics aren't all that impactful in the Ukraine land war. A war at sea very well could prove a much different story.
Millions of Filipinos can help the U.S. in logistics, maintenance, storage, hospital medical jobs, as well as BOOT IN THE GROUND.
Our expertise in diplomacy and our capacity in manufacturing has atrophied to the point of possibly loosing the institutionally retained knowledge that was required for these two important factors to succeed.
In my opinion China has demonstrated an ability to be quite pragmatic in many areas. Is DC as pragmatic or are we throughly entrenched in the hegemonic high after 1991 that’s kept us in some sort of post-cold war nostalgic psychosis?
Bottom line, I fear that the US has a competency problem, in many areas. China? Not certain. It just seems like the US is an “unserious” actor while China is a “serious” actor.
These r suppose to b high ranking officers and yet they seem soo stupid/arrogant... love it...
Is it wise to publish general military plans and war games so CCP can read them?
We're not publishing war plans. Nothing classified here. Just an open source discussion of the realities as our authors see them.
Fallon Nevada! I miss Nevada
Tinkles. 😂
All China needs to do is take and hold Taiwan, then wait it out. Taiwan is so close, half of the people are fine with being part of China, other half will give China trouble until they run out of choices. None of them want to be a proxy for somebody else's plans.
China isn't worried about military defeat. Its main worry is economic and technological uncertainty after world is strictly divided, with no way to unify again.
I'd be a little surprised if _half_ the population of Taiwan was really ok with being part of China.
You know nothing about Taiwan if you think half the population would be OK with being occupied by China.
@@zacnewman7140 The most pro-China channels I've seen are Taiwanese channels. People tend forget this has always been a civil-war.
Any longer peace would be certainly deadly for the U$ economy.
In his recent article for the Naval Institute, Commander Cobb's strategy is risk management in a war between the US and China on Taiwan. He advocates no naval brawls and no attack on China’s mainland. He acknowledges China’s missile capability. The US carrier group should stay outside China’s missile range and launch multi-day air attacks, using undersea assets and irregular forces. The US should also employ long-strike missiles, torpedoes, and SAM. Internal and external resistance groups in China should be supported. Construction battalions will be needed in areas such as Guam after China’s expected missile attacks. He feels time is on the US side because of China’s aging population. Now, my comments: while he took in China’s missile capability, he did not acknowledge how he would handle the US's long-distance logistics and production (missiles and ships) capability. In a war, there will be a blockade around Taiwan and Guam, so how will construction and military materials arrive on those islands? I would argue that time is on China’s side because of the US political system, fickle public sentiments, and lack of a reason to lose blood and treasure on a Taiwan adventure. It will likely be a war waged by politicians, economists, and finance types on sanctions. In any case, everyone will lose.
Yeah, agreed. I think China thinks this too. I think any east Asian leader looks at U.S. policy and immediately thinks on a wait them out strategy.
Our carriers just don’t have the range or magazine depth to cope with China’s land-based IRBMs. Missiles out-range strike aircraft the same way aircraft outranged battleship guns.
A major deficiency that is really chronic is how poor US ship building is. The Chinese are the number 1 shipbuilder in the world, and can probably quickly scale up pretty good submarine production to a solid 10 per year, whereas the US had to just give up on it's 2 subs per year production target. The US merchant marine fleet is just not capable of supplying an Indo-Pacom campaign of hardly any sort... Chinese submarines can run rampage in amongst the 2nd island chain on our logistics ships and we would have no depth of re-supply. Essentially we are 1940s Japan's industrial base vs. China being the US equivalent 1940s industrial base. They can scale military production to 10x and maybe even 20x and we're struggling to scale 2x right now with all kinds of political will in regards Ukrainian, Israeli and Indo-Pacific materiel, supply and intelligence policy, along with bills being passed on the Hill. I think in large part, it's old school submarine warfare along with new-school submarine aeronautical and logistics that's going to win the day, and we can't get beyond 1 sub produced per year. But the American people are hostile to all this war spending, they've had enough of multi-billion dollar supply packages to Ukraine and they'll be tired of it to Israel soon too... Are we really going to be able to add on the weight of the real fight - of supplying proxy forces in East Asia and standing those proxy forces up with much larger, revamped Marine and Ranger forces?.. Of subtle marine/naval interdiction of Chinese strategic cargo ships? Through the Nicoman, Christmas islands, etc.,? People are going without 3 and not even 2 meals a day in America, the food stamps program alone has been gutted over the last 12 years... Are they really going to go for a no butter and all guns policy? Can we really instigate a fight between India and China so that India will take the heat for our clandestine operations against Chinese shipping in the Indian ocean? I think it's all a real long shot. I think our only allies that can really help us scale ship building are Japan, Korea, etc., - which are all subject to Chinese sabotage in their shipbuilding yards.
This sounds like the scenario depicted in Fight Fight by Kevin Miller, although in the book's case, it was an accidental chemical attack on a US warship by the PLA Navy rather than a Taiwan incursion. Two CVNs end up disabled right off the bat, albeit one only temporarily, US air assets on Guam are significantly degraded through ballistic missile attack, and a neutral Japan is pulled into the war following the accidental sinking of a JMSDF capital ship by the PLA. There's some plot armor that keeps most of the US naval assets in action despite deployment of hypersonic ship killers by China, but the threat of economic depression and civil unrest (in both countries) within a matter of weeks force a diplomatic solution well before losses on both sides become crippling. It's plausible
@@JamesRather-s6e There is no doubt that the US Navy was requested to accompany Philippine ships to resupply the almost brand-new PH Coast Guard ship at the Sabina Shoals, which had been there for five months. Clear thinking avoided a potential disaster there. Both sides may posture, but no one wants a fight. Kevin Miller thinks the public demand for cheap goods can change a government's direction, but really, it is a significant stock market crash that will change direction. Economic wars, not hot wars, will be used against nuclear-powered peers and near peers to settle disputes.
This is why we need trump, he’s been the only president that didn’t start any new wars
allies? in a paper based war game you can, in a real full out war, you better not. Chins is not fool enough to declare war to all the US allies, they will also find all the possible way to push to their favor. Aussie will probably send a ship or two and a few hundred soldiers.... see what happened in Korea peninsula back in 1950s.
When a young lion challenges the old lion king, other lions will not fight alongside the old lion king, but will observe the outcome of the battle
14:03 be under no illusions, this is the only way that the US will get involved in combat over Taiwan
The USA doesn’t even recognise Taiwan as an independent state!
“Though the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we have a robust unofficial relationship” from US Dept of State website
Such war will unfold like the 30-Year War
Why would the u.s. be involved in a war for Taiwan?
Because the Taiwan Relations Act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability" and "shall maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan".
@@USNavalInstitute dumb idea.
U.s. is bankrupt
Semiconductors
China thinks it will be HAHA
Truly insane way of thinking.
AI will end humanity
I fear the US would crumble its political will to continue the fight the moment things become uncomfortable for them.
How long will China survive after it can no longer ship materials to and from China through the Malacca and Sunda Straights.
Check the map again. China is a an Eurasian Continental country.
China can easily get its trade, natural resources, raw materials, food, energy by land. That is why China is spending gazillions of dollars on the Belt and Road project so build the infrastructure like the railroads, highways, ports and air ports to link Eurasia to China.
All Trade with China can easily be sent by sea to other countries with ports in Eurasia like Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Myanmar and then be sent by land or by rail to China through Eurasia.
China is self sufficient in many things already and China can get a lot it natural resources from Russia and Kazakhstan .
Russia and Kazakhstan as well as other Central Asian countries have endless amounts of raw materials, energy, food, and fertilizer.
Taiwan on the other hand is an Island.
Taiwan imports almost 60% of all of its food from abroad to feed its people.
27% of all of Taiwan's food comes from Mainland China.
Taiwan imports almost 99% of all of its energy from abroad.
If the US blockades China. The US will be blockading itself.
Pentagon officials testified before congress that 40% of all semi conductors used in US weapons are manufacturered in China.
I would guess that a lot of the other 60% are manufacturered in Taiwan.
Furthermore most of the rare earths and processing for those rare earths used to manufacture US weapons comes from China
If the US blockades China not only will all US isupermarket shelves will be empty
The US won't be able to get the rare earths and semiconductors from China or Taiwan needed to manufacture many of its most sophisticated weapons.
There will be a shortage of everything in the United States.
Inflation will go through the roof
Remember how inflation hit the US after Covid19.
If you think that is bad, you have no idea how bad it would be if you blockade China.
Plus China could easily blockade all the goods from other Asians countries from heading to the US.
The US couldn't even defeat the Houthis blockade of Israel in the red sea.
The Houthis have no air force or navy.
All they have is $20 000 drones
Do you really think the US will be able to break a Chinese Navy blockade of Taiwan.
@danwelterweight4137 If overland trade through Eurasia was so easy, then China wouldn't have to spend that much on the BRI.
The tricky bit here is that China & the collective West are tied at the hip economically. Any major conflict would devastate both sides economically.
@grahamstrouse1165 North America produces more food than its current population requires. China/Eurasia produces less food than China's population needs.
So in America, prices for toys and electronics quadruple, and in China, famine kills millions.
@@stevebriggs9399No one said it was easy or good for the economy, but they would survive, can’t starve out China, any blockade them to submission, impossible.
Can’t do it to Russia, couldn’t do it against Vietnam, North Korea or Germany and Japan in world war 2, to believe it can be done to the worlds largest trading nation and economy is just plane arrogance.
This is not a war worth fighting
You didn't like my comments and therefore you deleted it? or it was @UA-cam? or China?
This is all very interesting, but airing this information in a public forum seems idiotic to me. "Hey China, here are our strengths and weaknesses along with the strategies we're contemplating."
simply put it this conversation is kinda retarded.
Wow this guy is so far off the mark.
Time is 100 percent on China's side since the USA is crippled in manufacturing
A possible way to shorten the war is to offer the leadership of the provinces a way out (legal immunity, inclusion in trade blocs, etc) if they break away from Beijing. Make these offers to regional PLA commanders as well. China has never been as united as we have been told.
The problem is that the U.S. assumes china does not have the same level of sophisticated weapon systems.
?
We are already at war. A kinetic war could last a hundred years with the resources available to both.
Why are we acting this delusional? We have ZERO industrial war making capacity. Almost none. China builds hundreds of ships a year. We build 4. They mass produce missiles, and it takes us a year to make 120 LRASMS. The US needs to accept reality or become the industrial powerhouse once again. We need 2 or 3 new ShipYards and trades aprentice programs to train ship builders. Thats first. Number two is end buying of foriegn steel and ramp back up US steel production. Number 2 is munitions and shell production must quadruple but more importantly we need new factories that produce TNT and RDX explosives and gunpowder. Without these basics we have no chance.
There are,inside the US today, numbers that equate to at least 30-40 battalions of military aged men. They are dispersed throughout the country in every strategic location. In every major population center, nearby every military installation, observing every cell tower, every electrical distribution and generating facility, water distribution plants, food handling and n distribution centers. Does anyone think that should any combat actually break out that these assets would not cause massive disruption in the homeland which would demand all overseas US forces to withdraw and return to defend and assist here? The same can be said for our allies such as Australia, Europe, as well as Japan, Philippines, Singapore, (etc). We ignore New Zealand as they have self destroyed. Should the war start we can also expect NK to target Guam, Japan, Diego Garcia, and Hawaii as China focuses on Taiwan. Nonetheless, US forces will be needed here as defending the US. Given other battalions of internal criminal activity and it won’t matter how many guns civilians have here, they won’t be organized, disciplined, or capable. All the strategic models are absent this clear and open turmoil. This scenario also doesn’t consider the potential of an EMP or two and essentially the war is virtually over as it begins. To believe these forces are not capable is foolish. Thanks to open borders this has become real, but it seems we choose to think in conventional and traditional military terms only,.
Russia's war in Ukraine have showed his point.
That's not even remotely true. The Russians do not currently view themselves as at war with either NATO or the U.S. (although that will change if Biden authorizes the use of U.S. long- range missiles by the Ukrainians to strike targets deep inside Russia). If NATO and the Russians clash directly, losses on both sides will rapidly outpace the ability or the combatants to replace them. With 2- 3 weeks at the outside, one or the other (it doesn't matter who) will begin to visibly lose. That is when WMDs will be used by the prospective loser to redress the balance. So far, both the U.S. and the Russians have been careful to avoid this situation.
No, it has not. The war in Ukraine is not a direct clash between two nuclear- armed powers.
@@manilajohn0182The nuclear part is irrelevant, as it is not in either country's interests to use nuclear weapons. The only time two nuclear powers did actively go to war, there was no nuclear exchange.
Russia gdp is 10th or so...... it is not the USSR you guys knew and grew up with.
China cannot invade itself.
What is Taiwan's official name?
Taiwan's official name is "Republic of China" .
Read the Republic of China 's (Taiwan) own constitution.
The Republic of China's (Taiwan) own constitution states that Taiwan is a part of China.
Not only does Taiwan's own constitution state that Taiwan is a part of China it also calls for the Reunification with Mainland China.
Plus under Taiwan's own constitution secessionism is illegal.
As a matter of fact up until the late 1980s if you called for Independence of Taiwan from China you would be arrested for sedition and treason in Taiwan.
Taiwanese passports, birth certificates, Banks, official money, airlines, and all cabinet Ministrers have the word China in their names or the word China written on them.
Even Taiwan's military is named after China.
Taiwan's military is named Republic of China Armed forces.
The government of Taiwan used to represent the whole of China in the UN security council up until 1972.
For decades they claimed to be the legitimate government of the whole of China.
There has never been a debate in whether Taiwan is a part of China.
Both the government of Republic of China and the People's Republic of China claimed to be the legitimate governments of China.
The debate was always on who is the legitimate government of China.
Was it the government in the Republic of China thst only had the support of 23. 4 million Chinese governing from Taipei.
Or was the government of the People's Republic of China which has the support of 1.4 Billion Chinese governing from Beijing.
Some countries, only 9 now, recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) as the legitimate government of China.
Other countries including the United States and about 189 other countries recognized the People's Republic of China as the legitimate government of the whole of China.
This has always been the debate.
No one ever recognized Taiwan as an independent country. Not even Taiwan itself.
Up until 1991 Taiwan was building up its armed forces to invade Mainland China.
For decades before that they used to carry out raids and air strikes on Mainland China with the goal of getting a foothold on Mainland China and then eventually to retake whole Mainland China.
They also used to carry out an insurgency into Mainland China from the jungles of Myanmar until the PLA and the Burmese military defeated them and run them out of there.
The Republic of China was founded in Mainland China.
The founder of the Republic of China in Taiwan greatest dream was the reunification of CHINA.
Before he died his last wish was to have his body sent to the Mainland to be burried there near his ancestors.
Mainland China does not have to invade Taiwan.
The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both a part of China and belong to the Chinese people all 1.5 Billion of them
and it is the overwhelming will of the Chinese people that they both should reunite.
How that reunification will take place. It's up to them. But if anyone tries to break China apart it will be the biggest mistake they will have ever made in their entire history. It's not going to end up well for them or their people in their home country
There is only a small minority of people in the Republic of China (Taiwan) who don't want to break away China. They are mainly of Japanese decent. A legacy left from Japanese colonialism.
They are about 2.3 million of them
If there are people in the Republic of China who don't want to be a part of China, they are free to pack up all their things and leave China.
They can go to Japan and become Japanese if they want so they can live under American hegemony as American tributary vassal state like if that is what they want so much
Taiwan is undefendable.
Taiwan imports almost 60% of its food to feed its people from abroad.
27% of that food comes directly from the Mainland
Taiwan imports almost 99% of its energy.
Even the Uranium used to power their nuclear reactors comes from abroad.
The PLA does not have to invade Taiwan.
All they have to do is do a blockade of the Island of Taiwan
All the PLA has to do is launch a blockade of Taiwan and in 2 to 3 weeks Taiwan will have a total energy blackout. All it's industries, factories, cities, homes, vehicles will run out of power and grind to a halt. Their economy will be completely destroyed.
In 2 to 3 months maximum they will face famine and starvation.
They don't have any natural resources or raw materials.
If you think the US can break a PLA blockade of Taiwan remember this
The US navy wasn't even able to break a Houthi blockade of Israel in the red sea for 11 months.
As a result 80% of all the shipping that used to go to Israel's largest port has ceased.
The only thing thst has saved Israel is that the Despicable Egyptian authorities have allowed Israel to use their 3 ports in the Mediterranean Sea which is out of reach of the Houthis.
The Houthis don't even have a navy or an Air force. All they have used are old anti ship missiles and $10 000 to $20 000 drones.
That alone has been able to chase away multi Billion dollar US warships armed with $1.4 million to $4 million missiles out to sea.
As a result the US navy and an entire flotilla of its tributary vassal states couldn't break the Houthis blockade of Israel in the red sea for 11 months.
Yet people in the United States still think the US navy could break a PLA blockade of Taiwan.
China could literally block out the sun over Taiwan's ports, airports and beaches with drones.
China can literally land artillery shells and missiles barrages anywhere into Taiwan fired from its coastal regions.
The only way the US could defeat China in a war against Taiwan is by invading Mainland China and occupying the Mainland.
Good luck with that one
Moreover the Chinese have the ability and the weapons to strike deep and hard
into the United States against all American centers industrial, economic, population centers and political centers power in as little as 17 to 18 minutes.
China industrial capacity is the largest in the world.
Chinas industrial capacity is larger than the next 9 countries combined.
China manufacturers 200x more shipping tonnage a year than the United States.
China manufactures 12x more steel than the United States.
China graduates 7x more Stems than the United States.
China's population is 4x larger than the United States.
If China goes to war it will mobilize its entire industrial capacity into full scale production.
They will out manufacture the United States in all sorts of weapons systems big and small into oblivion
They will mobilize tens of millions and tens of millions of men into the PLA..
Plus China will have Russia's support in natural resources, raw materials, additional military industrial manufacturing capacity, energy, food.
The United States does not have the industrial capacity to go head to head with China in the long term... It does not have the willing population to be mobilized for a a war of thst scale.
The United States is $35 Trillion in debt.
You people need to stop dreaming of fighting China over Taiwan.
Your politicians and experts mouths are writting cheques your country and your people can't cash.
I hope you have that novel written somewhere and are just pasting it into the comment section. That was a lot of work for something no one is going to read.
“China cannot invade itself. “
Sure it can. It’s called civil war.
Now that your first point is debunked, I will casually ignore the rest of your monologue.
@ashvandal5697 From the definition of the Civil War, invasion is not the right word.