Go to nordvpn.com/covert and use code COVERT to get a 2-year plan plus 4 additional months with a huge discount in their special new deal! It’s risk free with Nord’s 30 days money-back guarantee!
Are you also going to make a video detailing how the us could win a war with China? Seems quite fair that way. Otherwise you wouldn’t be objective, but just one sided.
ONLY those species who get off of this Earth and out of this solar system/galaxy might continue to survive, (if it can even actually be accomplished for various reasons), everybody else is eventually going to die and go extinct. We do not have to defeat our enemies, we only have to outlast them beyond this Earth. Nature will wipe them out for us.
3 basic ways out of this galaxy to potentially continue to survive, (as a species or whatever evolves from our species): 1. Long way: Outward through the galactic plane. 2. Medium way: Outward through the angled solar system's plane. 3. Short way: Outward, about 90 degrees from the galactic plane, as adjusted for the galactic magnetic lines of flux for a smoother ride. (Basically 'rise above' the collapsing spiral shaped galaxy). * And music, don't forget music. It's going to be a long trip.
I can also say the weapons disparity is swinging more in US favor. China challenged us at what we do best and they tipped their hand too early. Prepare for doom.
Both would collapse soon after if they wage war anyways. There's no real benefit in war in this day and age. On one side is a corporate dystopia, the other is a communist dictatorship. The unaffiliated would be eating popcorn as long as both won't end up throwing nukes at each other.
Japan is playing an increasingly large role in the defense of Taiwan. And as Japan continues to militarized… thats only going to become a bigger thorn in China’s side.
@@shinchan-F-urmom south Korea a Chinese ally? Hah! China is the biggest reason why NK exists in the first place. You're forgetting the tens of thousands of US troops and hardware sitting on SK soil/
One thing I d say would weigh in the US military favor is the fact that it has a lot of real life battle experience. This experience is hard to simulate.
"One thing I d say would weigh in the US military favor is the fact that it has a lot of real life battle experience [of losing wars one after another since WWII -- Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraqi War, Afghan War, . . .] This experience is hard to simulate." Fixed it forya. You are very welcome.
@@michaelngan99 Lmaoo Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were political losses not combat losses America outclassed the other side in combat but the American public lost faith in the operations to go along with no clear operational objectives that could be sold to them, Korea is a stalemate and is a story of two tales before Chinese intervention and after even after Chinese intervention look how many Chinese died compared to Americans, before Chinese intervention America was winning the fight, North Korea couldn’t penetrate the 38th parallel line lost Inchon, Seoul fell next and then America penetrated deep into their territory. Americans can fight and are good at it, the key is the American public, and clear objectives and clear, factual reasons for doing so
@@user-ex7qx4pv2u You didn’t understand at all American public opinion only matters when it comes to the political objectives as far as military objectives we’ll be fine. The important factor is time. America will need to be swift and quick in defense of Taiwan it can’t be more than five years. At the end of the day the government will protect its assets and Taiwan is very important for the US if the public knows that and isn’t ignorant to that fact then all is good
Although it'd cost China the use of a strong diversion, taking Taiwan first would make a subsequent pushback against the US in the 2nd island chain much simpler. Without a clear, secure route into the Pacific, it doesn't really matter how many naval assets China has, as they are so few possible corridors they can take through the 1st island chain that they will always be sitting ducks. If she can secure the Taiwanese east coast and Orchid islands, then her odds of a successful offensive against Guam or Okinawa improve markedly.
@@Stinger522 well the global economic market is much more interconnected in the modern day than it used to be. That is one of the main reasons why wars between powerful nations haven’t happened almost at all since ww2. The damage it would be economically and politically is not worth anything you could gain. The same could not be said 100 years ago.
The US saw the assembly of Iraqi forces on the Kuwaiti border and would have known what was about to occur, but they couldn't have stopped the invasion. I get that same feeling in this instance, but I will dissect the issue from my point of view as someone with a little experience, albeit not at this scale. I don't see China invading Guam or any place the US claims hegemony. I also don't see them attacking Japan's holdings, mainly because it is not tenable in the long run, as it is not as if the Japanese government would be overrun or anything, and with US support counter-attacks would be relatively simple, at the very least to drop ordinance and prevent resupply. It just couldn't be held. Guam would be easier, but China could not avoid the escalation factor, which does not work in their favor. They stand to gain nothing by starting a nuclear war, and as such are unlikely to take actions that would trigger such a conflict, thus their targets will be, as they have been up to this point, relatively small. The islands they have taken to the present time were taken precisely because they knew there would be no consequences militarily speaking. But also because those islands will serve them well in an invasion of Taiwan, thus they had a purpose. This is just like Russia's violation of sovereign territory to secure a naval base that has important strategic implications in future power projection. Taiwan is quite different from the other potential "main" targets in my opinion. Once Taiwan is seized, there is no more territory where the government and military forces can regroup. Any counterattacks would be quite predictable from Guam, Japan, or Korea, and the only avenues of approach are land or sea. You need not worry about ground forces any longer once Taiwan is overrun. I disagree that China would have to keep a Taiwan conflict down to a few weeks to be successful. Rather, they would have to keep it to about 4 or 5 days to prevent getting bogged down and increasing the uncertainty to the point that victory is no longer probable. What I mean is that all major military resistance on the ground must be quelled in that time period. You cannot have large military forces that still pose a threat on the ground, as this will increase American resolve and result in increased air activity by giving the US a force to support. Once Taiwan has been taken, the US air response will be lessened, as there is no longer a military objective to be achieved. If you cannot take the territory back, your only other option is to bomb it, but the civilians are friendly and you don't want to hurt them, and you can't really achieve anything through air attacks alone. You can destroy all the military targets you want at that stage, but it will not accomplish anything without retaking the island. If their assembly can be done relatively quietly for support materiel as well as infantry, a quick unification of the sea-based forces would be possible, and could be kept hidden from satellite observation simply by not uniting till it is time for the operation, as well as signals intelligence given good discipline and practices. The US would notice the movements, but the question is would it be enough time to have any effect on the outcome? And as for airpower, that would be even easier to hide from signals intelligence in my opinion. But the kicker is that as long as assembly is done at a relatively fast pace, I don't think the US reaction will be fast enough to really stop the operation, regardless of whether it is picked up or not, granted that China can assemble and launch in less than 72 hours. That is the window I would give them for the best outcome, but they could take longer and still succeed. It would take much prior preparation away from the coast, which likely would be picked up to a large degree, but perhaps would not be understood. Deception would be helpful. I don't know just how streamlined Chinese C2 is, and it would be challenging, but if anyone could pull it off it would be them. If I were in charge of landing troops in Taiwan, I wouldn't focus on the obvious approach from directly across the strait. I would want to land most of the amphibious forces further around the island, which would be more difficult, but without engagement restrictions I think China could, with acceptable losses, just throw a wall across the water that lands on and crushes Taiwanese defenses. But I also would not make the amphibious portion of the assault the main effort. I would save that for airborne forces. The short distance makes this quite do-able. One unknown factor is just how long it would take China to suppress the air defenses on the island, and whether it could be done before the US responds in force. Taiwan has been preparing for one major military engagement for a long time, so you cannot discount their preparation, which still could simply be outmatched in sheer numbers. That goes back to the importance of assembling in a specific manner that doesn't draw attention, over a long period of time. China would not have to defeat US air support coming to Taiwan's aid, because it likely would not be fast enough or with enough force to prevent the initial beachheads and landing zones from seeing strong Chinese forces embedded on the island. Once that happens, I feel that China could succeed. Even with prior warning in Taiwan it is possible that they could still succeed. As far as US intervention, if history has taught us anything it is that the US is never ready for the initial attack, which just bolsters my opinion that initial success is quite possible.
You don’t see China’s lack of large scale military experience and no amphibious landing experience a problem? Not to mention there are only 2 logical approaches to the island by sea and China doesn’t have the equipment to circumvent that. It would have to seize a port virtually undamaged to have a chance at a successful push into Taiwan. Deception is also difficult to pull off since there’s only 2 times a year that’s feasible to conduct a month long amphibious operation.
If China somehow took Taiwan via force then they could not withstand the full force of the rest of the world. China would lose half of their landmass and would be forced to be a developing nation for another 50-100 years, assuming the war doesn't go nuclear.
The problem is a 4-5 day invasion is impossible US pacific command is ready marines up and down Japan and throughout Asia, air groups ready to go China would not be able to accomplish this also can’t forget about Taiwan’s own military and the geographical challenges of crossing the Taiwan Strait
My prediction is it will be Taiwan, USA, Japan, Australia, and India vs China. Russia will provide supply but won't fight while N Korea and S Korea will stare down each other.
The extent to which they participate in the actual battle is subtle, but I think Britain, France and the Netherlands will also be listed in the Allies.
@@benjamindixon3512 85 billion of equipment given to a allied government not the usa leaving it & if we really wanted to we could bomb & air strike all equipment left behind but most of the equipment is old asf anyways & will be nonoperational in a year 1-2
How to win a war against superpower: 1. Let them easily counquer your whole country 2. Destroy your economy with constant attacks and warfare. 3. Superpower realises ocupation is not worth it's price 4. Victory, now you can enjoy your destroyed country with medieval economy.
@@hphp31416 Afghanistan was a medieval country before the war. No NAVY, no Airforce, no Social Security. Only an idiot would have attacked them. Oh pardon me idiots are ruling the US at least for the last 30 years.
Attacking Guam - which is US territory - and hope for a modest response which could lead to a tactical advantage for China after the conflict? Does not sound reasonable.
Correction: China has more Hulls in Ships but the USA has far more Tonnage in Ship Size and Firepower! The Chinese Aircraft can't even compare to US Airpower.
To ask a serious question, unleashing the Corona virus when healthcare care costs in the USA are out of control and a Achilles heel? What if an adversary sees that the US would collapse economically and therefore be domestically too distracted or weak to fight? Maybe the combination of animosity between rural/urban, cyber attack, pandemic has changed our focus already?
or maybe a good media campaign can convince people to forget about those things and focus on a more important threat... people often forget that part of why the US did so well in wwii was because of the efforts of its citizens in production. apparently the US alone supplied 2/3rds of the supplies for the allies during the war because of a national effort.
@@nicelypenn Well, after the war our infrastructure was intact while the rest of the world was destroyed. We also amassed huge amounts of gold BEFORE WWII under the Trading with the enemy act of 1917. After the war, Breton Woods made the $ the reserve currency of the word and secured American hegemony. Since 1973, the gold window was closed and even though productivity per worker grew rapidly in the US, the wages and wealth of the working class stagnated. None of the gains in productivity or the stock market trickled down to the middle class.
"Unleashing the coronavirus" If you read this, please unleash less then 5 minutes if your life and look up "event 201" in any search bar. A global coronavirus pandemic exercise from a month before covid. Look at who hosted the pandemic practice exercise on their page. Not China, the white knights we saw on TV. Their latest global pandemic readiness exercise was called "catastrophic cantagion".
Well Russia is diverse and won't try to assimilate you at least. China strategy is always of full assimilation. Ironically they built a modern natsoc state.
China is focused and they know exactly what they want, US still debating among themselves on what direction they want to go, and what leader should lead them. typical end of an empire and raise of another, not much US can do about it really.
You have a point but it’s not that simple. The US has obtained a unique position in world history. It is the most powerful and dominant nation that has ever existed, not even the british empire at it’s peak could claim to have near unrivaled control of the world’s seas, and it does not have that position simply by having a strong military or economy. The us has the best geography in the world. Complete safety from any kind of invasion from any direction. Direct access to the two largest oceans in the world. Massive land area that does not have issues of overpopulation. Huge oil and gas reserves. Among other things, China does not have those qualities. It is possible that the US is on the decline permanently. It is also possible it is in a slump, that wouldn’t be something that’s never happened before. The roman empire nearly collapsed in the third century before stabilizing.
@@Larry_Suave You forgot one important detail, once it start declining (as it's the case now) it will also split into multiple small countries that will fight each other forever, it's the way life is, any history students knows that.
@@Larry_Suave We're talking about empires, not countries or nations. while it has been thousands of countries and nations throughout history, there only handful empires that none of them have survived to date. US is no difference, again any junior history student would easy confirm this. I would higly recommend an unbiased YT channel called "Kings and Generals" for you, I will guaranty that you will learn a lot.
@@yetanothername1131 Us is not an empire. Though their action is very similar to empire just how they move there military it just different to empire. It is true there is possibility. As above mentioned US has geographical location. Which you can't dent it.
US let's Fly 400 Nukes hitting the 50 largest Chinese Cities and 50 of China's largest Dams. Then drops another 200 Nukes in the Aftermath. Saving about 3500 Nukes just in case Russia feels frisky. China's 400 Nukes my get 50 strikes on US oh what an Equal Exchange.
@@goda7137 except Taiwan and the encroaching waters are all within kill range of most Chinese missiles. A perfect killzone. Only the blind won't be able to see it
interesting, although I noticed some mistakes your 20% carrier activity is seriously underestimated for a fact, I know that 1 or 2 are stationed at Afghanistan for the withdrawal support also, 2-3 are currently active in the SCS and I know they testing the newest version of carrier, this one is loaded out with supplies and can be rushed to the SCS to, on the way there will be some exchange of planes. that's a total of 5-6 active out of 12, so 40-50% is a more accurate estimate I also think that after the withdrawal that AC will go home first and after join the others in the SCS during Trump's administration with the NK thing, Trump send 4 there at once, while another was stationed near Iraq and Afghanistan for ISIS issues. so they have or can have Trippel your estimate in the SCS very quickly. The attack on Japan will not go as planned, when the US sees a large formation of bombers heading their way, they'll shoot, might be some dmg due to waiting till the last moment, but at this time, they'll kill some before they drop bombs but I do agree with the surprise ground assault there, might work and do serious dmg as the US wont suspect this. lastly, if this is all while going for Taiwan, I doubt China has reserves left, so any counterstrike will push them back quickly and possibly have to abandon the landing in Taiwan as they can't do both at once. They'll have to keep forces near India to
"It takes a long time to prepare a carrier strike group" Which is why we constantly keep them active all over the world... and only phase one out when we have a new one ready to replace it.
I would not bet on a military with next to no deployment experience and no naval warfare experience. Also the cutting of sea supply routes would strangle the Chinese. They are dependant upon food imports and do not have a land infrastructure connecting them with their suppliers. Assuming the US sanctions would not have ended that relationship by then....
Thank you! You are so correct china has complete net zero in live battle experience in military officers missiles gen 5 fighter jets ships subs blah blah blah any combat soldier worth his salt will tell you there is absolutely no substitute to have actual warfare on your resume. China's entire military is very immature.
Yes, historically it has always been a good idea to underestimate your opponent... "do not have a land infrastructure"... Wait what? Where do you come up with this nonsense? China has had land infrastructure connecting it to the rest of the continent since 115 BC. Infact they get most of the food that they don't grow themselves, from other Asian countries and from Europe.
@@RenseBakker sure this why china has imported more grain mostly from india ever since the country existed more flood and drought on there current history still importing more beef them ever i could go on and on china is far from food self sufficient this not my opinion but fact.
@@kenfelix8703 Their Navy is not capable of protecting supply lines that long, which also run through several non friendly controlled chokepoints. In any case they would take massive supply hits, even if they manage to operate in the Indian Ocean. It is not a fight worth fighting for them.
I can't help but feel China wouldn't be more intelligent on taiwan, even if it does boil down to force. This event would seriously damage China's trade deals and economy, just to take over a place 1/3rd the size of NY. I know there is massive chip production there, and there is a nationalistic reason, but I'd imagine this is an insane expenditure for them. But hey, who the hell knows
Most people don't understand the large numbers of fighters like the JF-17, J-11 and now the J-20 that China has. Coupled with their PL-15 radar guided missiles they are at least, if not more than a match for the US legacy fighters that carry the C model aim 120. In particular our block 50 f16s, f15c, and F/A 18 super hornets. The D model is about on par with the PL-15 but in order to get the proper range to compare with JF-17 and J-11 you need fighters that are fast at high altitude, and neither the F/A-18 or the F16 are capable of high mach speeds at altitude when laiden. This gives a massive problem to carrier groups of the U.S. given the low range and engine performance of the super hornets. We have no real interceptor on carriers today. Numbers are also a problem in that theater. China wouldn't attack US bases at all, as the logistics of a long range strike spread out their capabilities and in blue water they aren't quite ready to take on the U.S. Navy. I will say that Taiwan is not off the table though. In fact I believe it to be a probability. It's close enough to China that China can literally bring it's entire air force and navy to bear, and still be inside it's own SAM and ballistic missile umbrella. They can create a situation where American carriers cant be within 1000 miles of their coast which negates naval air power and tomahawk strikes. In order to win that contest, large numbers of American stealth fighters like F22 and f35 would have to be sacrificed to destroy their Sam networks in order to pave the way for legacy birds. The Chinese navy would still be a huge issue though, because the U.S Navy still relies on the harpoon ASM, and outdated, slow, low yield warhead with an inferior range to china's own ASM stockpile. The really problem China WOULD have with the U.S. in this scenario is our alliances with Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Australia, and the U.S. submarine fleet which is by leaps and bounds still the best in the world. You would see close to 40 attack boats doing massive work in that AO within a few weeks. Give them six months to do work on the Chinese navy and follow it with stealth strikes on Sam batteries and ballistic missile sites and the U.S. may stand a chance, at least in the air and offshore. Taiwan, however would most certainly be lost or a complete shell of it's former self.
Speed doesn't really matter in a dog fight, the F/A 18 could beat any of the Chinese fighters (with the exception of the j-20 but who knows) for example, during the Falkland wars the britished used Harriers which were much slower than the argentine Skyhawks, but the Harriers still won most dogfights. Also we have a much larger airforce let alone navy then the Chinese and we have the best fighter the f22, which is most definitely better than there j-20 since the j-20 was based upon the f 35 which has been proven to be worse in air to air the. The f22 and f-16. Plus our navy even with slow missles have better tracking compared to Chinese vessels so we van actually hit our shots quicker since we have eyes on them first. Plus we have many more missles then the Chinese.
@@m1a2abrams34 almost everything you said is wrong. F/A-18 has a great one circle ability and high aoa but it bleeds airspeed and lacks the power to recover. Speed does matter in a dogfight and with you talking about harriers and Skyhawks you're talking about sidewinder fights. You aren't talking about BVR engagements which are the future. And the Chinese navy has far superior missiles to ours. You need to brush up on modern teck if you don't think so.
@@full_metal_troy8394 I am not wrong, even with their missles our aircraft are still much more superior and less out dated then the j 15 fighters that are just soviet submissions and migs with different styles which have been proven to be worse then our fighters. And with our AMRAAMS the Chinese have jo shot. Also we definitely don't have a comparable airforce size. Our airforce is the largest in the world and coming in second is our navy. Our navy had more fighter aircraft the. The Chinese airforce. The Chinese have maybe about 3000 aircraft or less, compared.to the 13000 us aircraft in all. I'm just mathematician but 3000 is way less then 13000
The problem is China doesnt stand a chance because there worst Asian nightmare Japan is onboard with a war with them if they invade Taiwan. Japan has better equipment/air craft and better trained guys. They would have to have a No retreat policy and get 50 percent of there population involved Militarily in order to have a chance to beat the US and Japan. Its possible if they do it right and willing to sacrifice all there money and 3 quarters of there population and get Middle east allies/North Korea involved and make sure Russia stays out of it. Then its possible.
Fyi, in the Rand corporation computer simulations with respect to a shooting war over Taiwan, things look much differently than what you are discussing here (a Ph.D. Aerospace Engineer who works for a large American defense contractor.
@@spaace.938 Hi Spaace...good for you. I assume you are already taking the honors math and science courses in H.S., it is really all about scoring well on the SAT's and your GPA to get yourself accepted (hopefully with some scholarship money) to one of the top Engineering Colleges. I retired from Lockheed Martin in 2016 but have been doing contract work with Raytheon and Northrop Grumman the last three years in Melbourne Fl. But I am about to hang up my spurs, I turn 65 in just two months and to be honest I don't have the mental or physical edge I had as a younger man. Being an Engineer is a very demanding but fun job. Good luck in your college and career aspirations. If I could give one piece of advice re: your Engineering major. I would recommend you consider Computer or Software Engineering as your undergrad degree with AE electives or some additional AE course work and then get your grad degree in AE. Everything today is all about the software.
@@stevefowler2112 Thank you so much for responding. I am in advanced math and thinking about going a year ahead in science. Thanks for the advice on taking computer science.
China doesn’t have any experience with modern wars. But one thing they fogot to mention, NATO. other countries would have to be involved if the USA gets attacked or if they attack another NATO
I've done the math, and I'd say that if the war dragged on for more than a few months, the US would win. You can also probably bet that Russia would take this opportunity to attack Ukraine, with the US focused on the Pacific. US allies in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia and Israel would likely clash with Chinese Allies like Iran and Afghanistan, and the war would very easily spill over. Anyway, I worked out which countries would back which side in the war, not just being allied, but the ones that will actually show support for the war effort in a meaningful way. The US side, or the Allies as I'll refer to them as, have way more going for them in terms of population and GDP that the Sino-Russo Syndicate, or just the Syndicate. The alliances are as follows: Allies (US Side): USA India Australia UK EU Canada Japan Taiwan Saudi Arabia Israel Ukraine South Korea Total Population: 2,574,727,000 Total GDP: $47,887,700,000,000 Total Nuclear Warheads: 6,920 Syndicate (China/Russia Side): China Russia Pakistan (Probably) Afghanistan Iran Belarus North Korea Total Population: 1,925,099,000 Total GDP: $15,286,953,000,000 Total Nuclear Warheads: 6,970 As you can see, the US would likely win the war, despite massive bloodshed being required to do it.
How do they defeat china trying to invade Taiwan .. Chinese can literally walk into the islands near the coast. A mainland invasion wd only be defeated with subs and planes but the carriers wd be sitting ducks
An invasion of Okinawa before or during an invasion of Taiwan?! I only wish the Chinese would be that stupid. But they aren't, so they'd save their resources for Taiwan.
Are you assuming that this war will only being China against the US? Because any war America will be in will include its allies. China will be sanction heavily. China does not have any combat experience. I would say that the Chinese military equipment will be substandard too.
China is carefully studying Russias woes in Ukraine and will not make same mistakes. Everyone is upping their game. Hope it doesn't happen. It will make Russia and Ukraine war look like a kid fight.
@@fadoobabachina is dumb because she can only copy USA is more dumb because they allow China to copy Other countries are the DUMBEST because they can't even copy
Copying is the starting point of innovation. Instead of spending more on making something original, copying something that works, and modifying it to what suits them later, and improve upon it, is far more cost effective. School teaches us cheating doesn't make you win, but that's a whole different story in war.
i just don't get it, why a powerful country would want to attack anyone. why would they need a small country like tiwan or what ever. i just can't get my mind over it, why would a huge country would need to fight any small country in the world, what is the point.
One thing about it all is China may have a bigger military but they have never been challenged and they are inexperienced our military is constantly challenged and very experienced we are constantly at war and no matter how stupid our president is I think our wonderful military will do what ever they have to do to survive and win
The plan needs to land its massive army on America shoes. We have a lot of really big trees here. The Brits tried that once. Ask them how that turned out for them.
China would never be able to become the super power it wishes it could be and over the throw worlds number one super power country. He'll I'm not even from the usa and know that's the world's strongest country undefeated in war
You military forecast about China 10 years time does not not take into account that the US military forces will also be more deadly given that the US military budget is presently three times that of China and also China's economy is more likely to decline during that time given the present geopolitical dynamics in consideration regarding the global confidence in present supply chain apparatus, These considerations will impact China's military enhancement's ambitions.
I dont think the US will be deploying 2 aircraft carriers that method are applied to other countries but this is CHINA the moment the war start the US would focus on china and probably won't take them lightly but yeah point taken
I think I have an idea of how the USA can counter, if China does attack it would most likely put so much strain on an already dwindling population which would in turn ripple into the economic and internal welfare of the state. Essentially, the USA would only need to buy time enough for China to expand its full economy into the war, as we have seen before authoritarian states have often had rigid inflexible economies and In China's case, that is their only weapon as of writing. Contrast this with how the United States was able to pick up the production and economic output of the USSR and axis powers during ww2, it would only need to bleed china long enough by hindering supply lines and exports. Btw this was literally off the top of my head so I doubt it would work lol
All of this talk about the USA fighting and winning a war with China using conventional weapons presupposes that there would be no use of nuclear weapons, even when China or the USA were at the point of losing the war using conventional weapons. This strikes me as a doctrine based upon wishful thinking.
It's realistic because only USSR and US (Cold War era) understood MAD and adhered to it, China thinks it can go kinetic and that US will not escalate to nuclear.
To suggest China could fight a war on two fronts (Taiwan and US) simultaneously is ludicrous. The whole world will be on high alert once the troop build up starts - they would need around 2.5 million soldiers to invade Taiwan plus thousands of troop carrying ships - so the chances of catching the US napping are minimal. All their assets would be tied up in the fight against Taiwan so they’d having nothing left to direct against the US. There are some really interesting papers online, published by military people (not UA-cam idiots), which put a very different perspective on China’s power and its ability to project it.
Much of the China made 'things' I have are very poor quality build. Perhaps just wait for china's military equipment to fall apart 3months after warranty.
I know you are a smart guy, but I'll bet you.that if you are thinking of these scenarios, safe to say the Pentagon is too, and probably thousands of others that we would have no idea about.
this would be a conflict mirroring Japan WW2 they would try to bait and isolate the US fleets first, remembering that this would at a time and place of their choosing, with a strength they generate what the US should do is move more battle groups into the Pacific, muster its allies, UK and Australia into assisting in strength if the US stays south of the first line of islands in the Pacific, thats going to make it very hard for China to manoeuvre as it might mean engaging other countries key to all this was the same in WW2, the submarines will do half the damage at much less losses, I guess thats how Australia sees it too limit fuel and logistics, stretch the time of endurance, strike when theyre not ready for you to strike
On a side note, the United States had stealth capabilities in the 1970s. 60 years later they likely have FAR more superior weapons. The United states would not simply allow China to surpass the US
I believe you’re overestimating China’s abilities it’s not like their gender roles and commanders know how to strategically fight a war in the air or in the blue sea when is the last time they have fought that type of war, never
Go to nordvpn.com/covert and use code COVERT to get a 2-year plan plus 4 additional months with a huge discount in their special new deal!
It’s risk free with Nord’s 30 days money-back guarantee!
How does china deceive the location of a landing in Taiwan or even an attack somewhere else? This is dumb
Are you also going to make a video detailing how the us could win a war with China? Seems quite fair that way. Otherwise you wouldn’t be objective, but just one sided.
This is a wishy-washy analysis. Thumbs down.
ONLY those species who get off of this Earth and out of this solar system/galaxy might continue to survive, (if it can even actually be accomplished for various reasons), everybody else is eventually going to die and go extinct. We do not have to defeat our enemies, we only have to outlast them beyond this Earth. Nature will wipe them out for us.
3 basic ways out of this galaxy to potentially continue to survive, (as a species or whatever evolves from our species):
1. Long way: Outward through the galactic plane.
2. Medium way: Outward through the angled solar system's plane.
3. Short way: Outward, about 90 degrees from the galactic plane, as adjusted for the galactic magnetic lines of flux for a smoother ride. (Basically 'rise above' the collapsing spiral shaped galaxy).
* And music, don't forget music. It's going to be a long trip.
I know how they can win: they keep doing what they’re doing and we keep doing what we’re doing.
You are wrong, as a person living in Hong Kong, I can tell you China is killing itself at an astonishing speed.
I can also say the weapons disparity is swinging more in US favor. China challenged us at what we do best and they tipped their hand too early. Prepare for doom.
@Heinrich
Rising on sand
Both would collapse soon after if they wage war anyways. There's no real benefit in war in this day and age. On one side is a corporate dystopia, the other is a communist dictatorship. The unaffiliated would be eating popcorn as long as both won't end up throwing nukes at each other.
@@eugene7145 nah china is fine. Hk is fucked tho, with Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and all the other port, your lazy ass just can't compete
do i still need NordVPN in a nuclear winter??!
Yes
Yes, more then ever, it's crucial. No more questions.
@@Veldtian1 Very well placed answer, if the ad says, it's because it's true.
Depends if the roving bands of canibals can track you over the internet or not
That is still only a theory at this point,
Japan is playing an increasingly large role in the defense of Taiwan. And as Japan continues to militarized… thats only going to become a bigger thorn in China’s side.
and yes, just a thorn that takes about 5 secs to remove.
@Bobo Mbutu look at this lying leftist
South Korea and North Korea don't approve Japan's re militarise, so they, both Korea's, are China's allies.
@@shinchan-F-urmom south Korea a Chinese ally? Hah! China is the biggest reason why NK exists in the first place. You're forgetting the tens of thousands of US troops and hardware sitting on SK soil/
@@cbrtdgh4210 still Japan is SK's biggest enemy, not NK. Also the only issue which unites SK and NK is Japan and comfort women
One thing I d say would weigh in the US military favor is the fact that it has a lot of real life battle experience. This experience is hard to simulate.
"One thing I d say would weigh in the US military favor is the fact that it has a lot of real life battle experience [of losing wars one after another since WWII -- Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraqi War, Afghan War, . . .] This experience is hard to simulate." Fixed it forya. You are very welcome.
@@michaelngan99 either way, you learn more from failure then you learn from success
Accompanied by the U.K, a tiny land that has never surrendered, and no one has had the balls to invade in modern times.
@@michaelngan99 Lmaoo Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were political losses not combat losses America outclassed the other side in combat but the American public lost faith in the operations to go along with no clear operational objectives that could be sold to them, Korea is a stalemate and is a story of two tales before Chinese intervention and after even after Chinese intervention look how many Chinese died compared to Americans, before Chinese intervention America was winning the fight, North Korea couldn’t penetrate the 38th parallel line lost Inchon, Seoul fell next and then America penetrated deep into their territory. Americans can fight and are good at it, the key is the American public, and clear objectives and clear, factual reasons for doing so
@@user-ex7qx4pv2u You didn’t understand at all American public opinion only matters when it comes to the political objectives as far as military objectives we’ll be fine. The important factor is time. America will need to be swift and quick in defense of Taiwan it can’t be more than five years. At the end of the day the government will protect its assets and Taiwan is very important for the US if the public knows that and isn’t ignorant to that fact then all is good
Clearly you need to launch drones from shipping containers to take your enemy by surprise ;)
this comment is sponsored by Erusea
Haha ace combat references loved it
i understood that reference
@@fegenein862 "Yup, we have nothing to do with it." - Unidentifiable Northeastern Osean.
check out the club-k shipping container missile system
War is not about winning it's about making the other side losing more than it can afford until they give up
But is it that winning?
@@critical_shot9292 well if the other team gives up yes...yes it is
@@critical_shot9292 it's like your car on fire but the guy you hate his house on fire you still lost but he lost more so technically you win
That system is called “winning”
If China loses, their last resort will be a nuclear Holocaust
Although it'd cost China the use of a strong diversion, taking Taiwan first would make a subsequent pushback against the US in the 2nd island chain much simpler. Without a clear, secure route into the Pacific, it doesn't really matter how many naval assets China has, as they are so few possible corridors they can take through the 1st island chain that they will always be sitting ducks. If she can secure the Taiwanese east coast and Orchid islands, then her odds of a successful offensive against Guam or Okinawa improve markedly.
That is silly.
What about the economic damage of going to war with your biggest customer.
That hasn't stopped people before.
@@Stinger522 well the global economic market is much more interconnected in the modern day than it used to be. That is one of the main reasons why wars between powerful nations haven’t happened almost at all since ww2. The damage it would be economically and politically is not worth anything you could gain. The same could not be said 100 years ago.
Lol, Australia in a nutshell
We can go without cheap TVs, but China can't go without food and oil
The US saw the assembly of Iraqi forces on the Kuwaiti border and would have known what was about to occur, but they couldn't have stopped the invasion. I get that same feeling in this instance, but I will dissect the issue from my point of view as someone with a little experience, albeit not at this scale.
I don't see China invading Guam or any place the US claims hegemony. I also don't see them attacking Japan's holdings, mainly because it is not tenable in the long run, as it is not as if the Japanese government would be overrun or anything, and with US support counter-attacks would be relatively simple, at the very least to drop ordinance and prevent resupply. It just couldn't be held. Guam would be easier, but China could not avoid the escalation factor, which does not work in their favor. They stand to gain nothing by starting a nuclear war, and as such are unlikely to take actions that would trigger such a conflict, thus their targets will be, as they have been up to this point, relatively small. The islands they have taken to the present time were taken precisely because they knew there would be no consequences militarily speaking. But also because those islands will serve them well in an invasion of Taiwan, thus they had a purpose. This is just like Russia's violation of sovereign territory to secure a naval base that has important strategic implications in future power projection.
Taiwan is quite different from the other potential "main" targets in my opinion. Once Taiwan is seized, there is no more territory where the government and military forces can regroup. Any counterattacks would be quite predictable from Guam, Japan, or Korea, and the only avenues of approach are land or sea. You need not worry about ground forces any longer once Taiwan is overrun.
I disagree that China would have to keep a Taiwan conflict down to a few weeks to be successful. Rather, they would have to keep it to about 4 or 5 days to prevent getting bogged down and increasing the uncertainty to the point that victory is no longer probable. What I mean is that all major military resistance on the ground must be quelled in that time period. You cannot have large military forces that still pose a threat on the ground, as this will increase American resolve and result in increased air activity by giving the US a force to support. Once Taiwan has been taken, the US air response will be lessened, as there is no longer a military objective to be achieved. If you cannot take the territory back, your only other option is to bomb it, but the civilians are friendly and you don't want to hurt them, and you can't really achieve anything through air attacks alone. You can destroy all the military targets you want at that stage, but it will not accomplish anything without retaking the island.
If their assembly can be done relatively quietly for support materiel as well as infantry, a quick unification of the sea-based forces would be possible, and could be kept hidden from satellite observation simply by not uniting till it is time for the operation, as well as signals intelligence given good discipline and practices. The US would notice the movements, but the question is would it be enough time to have any effect on the outcome? And as for airpower, that would be even easier to hide from signals intelligence in my opinion. But the kicker is that as long as assembly is done at a relatively fast pace, I don't think the US reaction will be fast enough to really stop the operation, regardless of whether it is picked up or not, granted that China can assemble and launch in less than 72 hours. That is the window I would give them for the best outcome, but they could take longer and still succeed. It would take much prior preparation away from the coast, which likely would be picked up to a large degree, but perhaps would not be understood. Deception would be helpful. I don't know just how streamlined Chinese C2 is, and it would be challenging, but if anyone could pull it off it would be them.
If I were in charge of landing troops in Taiwan, I wouldn't focus on the obvious approach from directly across the strait. I would want to land most of the amphibious forces further around the island, which would be more difficult, but without engagement restrictions I think China could, with acceptable losses, just throw a wall across the water that lands on and crushes Taiwanese defenses. But I also would not make the amphibious portion of the assault the main effort. I would save that for airborne forces. The short distance makes this quite do-able. One unknown factor is just how long it would take China to suppress the air defenses on the island, and whether it could be done before the US responds in force. Taiwan has been preparing for one major military engagement for a long time, so you cannot discount their preparation, which still could simply be outmatched in sheer numbers. That goes back to the importance of assembling in a specific manner that doesn't draw attention, over a long period of time.
China would not have to defeat US air support coming to Taiwan's aid, because it likely would not be fast enough or with enough force to prevent the initial beachheads and landing zones from seeing strong Chinese forces embedded on the island. Once that happens, I feel that China could succeed. Even with prior warning in Taiwan it is possible that they could still succeed.
As far as US intervention, if history has taught us anything it is that the US is never ready for the initial attack, which just bolsters my opinion that initial success is quite possible.
hey iooojjjjjjjnn im
You don’t see China’s lack of large scale military experience and no amphibious landing experience a problem? Not to mention there are only 2 logical approaches to the island by sea and China doesn’t have the equipment to circumvent that. It would have to seize a port virtually undamaged to have a chance at a successful push into Taiwan. Deception is also difficult to pull off since there’s only 2 times a year that’s feasible to conduct a month long amphibious operation.
If China somehow took Taiwan via force then they could not withstand the full force of the rest of the world. China would lose half of their landmass and would be forced to be a developing nation for another 50-100 years, assuming the war doesn't go nuclear.
The problem is a 4-5 day invasion is impossible US pacific command is ready marines up and down Japan and throughout Asia, air groups ready to go China would not be able to accomplish this also can’t forget about Taiwan’s own military and the geographical challenges of crossing the Taiwan Strait
About your first point on the US must have seen the assembly of Iraqi Forces, Yes, of course but mind you that's exactly what US wanted.
One of the sure way to victory is your enemy is over confident and underestimate you.
dont think the us underestimates china. there is a reason the military budget keeps getting bigger
1:54 - Skip an AD
Thanks
My prediction is it will be Taiwan, USA, Japan, Australia, and India vs China. Russia will provide supply but won't fight while N Korea and S Korea will stare down each other.
The extent to which they participate in the actual battle is subtle, but I think Britain, France and the Netherlands will also be listed in the Allies.
"tchhhhhyynaahhhhh"
_-some orange dude_
He's gone, we have a new idiot now.
When he will be reinstated? I heard he got supposedly reinstated on a monthly basis lol
They can ask Taliban a question, "how win a war against US with troops in flip flops?" Or "how to get 85 billion worth of equipment in 10 days?"
Sad but true
@@benjamindixon3512 85 billion of equipment given to a allied government not the usa leaving it & if we really wanted to we could bomb & air strike all equipment left behind but most of the equipment is old asf anyways & will be nonoperational in a year 1-2
How to win a war against superpower:
1. Let them easily counquer your whole country
2. Destroy your economy with constant attacks and warfare.
3. Superpower realises ocupation is not worth it's price
4. Victory, now you can enjoy your destroyed country with medieval economy.
@@hphp31416 Afghanistan was a medieval country before the war. No NAVY, no Airforce, no Social Security. Only an idiot would have attacked them. Oh pardon me idiots are ruling the US at least for the last 30 years.
@@artiombeknazaryan7542 its also one of the most mineral rich country on the planet.
Win? We'll all be lucky to survive! No freakin' winners!
Its not even a contest anymore. Its merely one side waiting out to systematically annihilate the other at their convenience.
Undoubtably - not a word. Undoubtedly is a word.
Attacking Guam - which is US territory - and hope for a modest response which could lead to a tactical advantage for China after the conflict? Does not sound reasonable.
Correction: China has more Hulls in Ships but the USA has far more Tonnage in Ship Size and Firepower! The Chinese Aircraft can't even compare to US Airpower.
Except in their ability to fall apart without notice.
US has better trained pilots...🙂
To ask a serious question, unleashing the Corona virus when healthcare care costs in the USA are out of control and a Achilles heel? What if an adversary sees that the US would collapse economically and therefore be domestically too distracted or weak to fight? Maybe the combination of animosity between rural/urban, cyber attack, pandemic has changed our focus already?
or maybe a good media campaign can convince people to forget about those things and focus on a more important threat...
people often forget that part of why the US did so well in wwii was because of the efforts of its citizens in production. apparently the US alone supplied 2/3rds of the supplies for the allies during the war because of a national effort.
@@nicelypenn Well, after the war our infrastructure was intact while the rest of the world was destroyed. We also amassed huge amounts of gold BEFORE WWII under the Trading with the enemy act of 1917. After the war, Breton Woods made the $ the reserve currency of the word and secured American hegemony. Since 1973, the gold window was closed and even though productivity per worker grew rapidly in the US, the wages and wealth of the working class stagnated. None of the gains in productivity or the stock market trickled down to the middle class.
"Unleashing the coronavirus"
If you read this, please unleash less then 5 minutes if your life and look up "event 201" in any search bar.
A global coronavirus pandemic exercise from a month before covid.
Look at who hosted the pandemic practice exercise on their page.
Not China, the white knights we saw on TV.
Their latest global pandemic readiness exercise was called "catastrophic cantagion".
I'd rather be forced to speak russian than chinese
I'd rather be forced to speak chinese than spanish
I rather take anything other than Chinese
Iran or South Sudan even
Whats the deal with China? Its a great country. The CCP thats the problem.
@@Lavalle.mp3 i dont hate their country i just hate the chinese
Well Russia is diverse and won't try to assimilate you at least. China strategy is always of full assimilation. Ironically they built a modern natsoc state.
Could you give us a "How US Could Win A War vs Space Cephalopod, After Invading Hawaii"? I love these fictional topics. Thx
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face...
China is focused and they know exactly what they want, US still debating among themselves on what direction they want to go, and what leader should lead them. typical end of an empire and raise of another, not much US can do about it really.
You have a point but it’s not that simple. The US has obtained a unique position in world history. It is the most powerful and dominant nation that has ever existed, not even the british empire at it’s peak could claim to have near unrivaled control of the world’s seas, and it does not have that position simply by having a strong military or economy.
The us has the best geography in the world. Complete safety from any kind of invasion from any direction. Direct access to the two largest oceans in the world. Massive land area that does not have issues of overpopulation. Huge oil and gas reserves. Among other things, China does not have those qualities.
It is possible that the US is on the decline permanently. It is also possible it is in a slump, that wouldn’t be something that’s never happened before. The roman empire nearly collapsed in the third century before stabilizing.
@@Larry_Suave You forgot one important detail, once it start declining (as it's the case now) it will also split into multiple small countries that will fight each other forever, it's the way life is, any history students knows that.
@@yetanothername1131 that is not a certainty whatsoever. There are many cases of powerful nations going through a slump and coming out of it.
@@Larry_Suave We're talking about empires, not countries or nations. while it has been thousands of countries and nations throughout history, there only handful empires that none of them have survived to date. US is no difference, again any junior history student would easy confirm this. I would higly recommend an unbiased YT channel called "Kings and Generals" for you, I will guaranty that you will learn a lot.
@@yetanothername1131 Us is not an empire. Though their action is very similar to empire just how they move there military it just different to empire. It is true there is possibility. As above mentioned US has geographical location. Which you can't dent it.
US, nukes Three georges dam, wins
We dont even need nukes Moabs could do the job
As if that would be easy?
Tomahawk strikes will be enough
@@QasimAli-to5lk as easy as turning a couple of keys, inputing a quick code and pushing a couple buttons
US let's Fly 400 Nukes hitting the 50 largest Chinese Cities and 50 of China's largest Dams. Then drops another 200 Nukes in the Aftermath. Saving about 3500 Nukes just in case Russia feels frisky. China's 400 Nukes my get 50 strikes on US oh what an Equal Exchange.
You forgot Camp Humphrey in Korea (Seoul)... the largest power projection platform of the USA!
History dictates that it has always been about resources, and the power over them.
Oil
US blockades oil to China.
Fun fact: Americans don't realize it, but Taiwan is the bait to set up a killzone for China to lure then eliminate US forces cheaply there
@@slslbbn4096 it same I see Taiwan similar to pearl harbor in world war 2 a bait by the American.
@@goda7137 except Taiwan and the encroaching waters are all within kill range of most Chinese missiles.
A perfect killzone. Only the blind won't be able to see it
Just made my day lol!! Love your videos man!
I always loved the red vs blue background music/intro music
interesting, although I noticed some mistakes
your 20% carrier activity is seriously underestimated
for a fact, I know that 1 or 2 are stationed at Afghanistan for the withdrawal support
also, 2-3 are currently active in the SCS
and I know they testing the newest version of carrier, this one is loaded out with supplies and can be rushed to the SCS to, on the way there will be some exchange of planes.
that's a total of 5-6 active out of 12, so 40-50% is a more accurate estimate
I also think that after the withdrawal that AC will go home first and after join the others in the SCS
during Trump's administration with the NK thing, Trump send 4 there at once, while another was stationed near Iraq and Afghanistan for ISIS issues.
so they have or can have Trippel your estimate in the SCS very quickly. The attack on Japan will not go as planned, when the US sees a large formation of bombers heading their way, they'll shoot, might be some dmg due to waiting till the last moment, but at this time, they'll kill some before they drop bombs
but I do agree with the surprise ground assault there, might work and do serious dmg as the US wont suspect this.
lastly, if this is all while going for Taiwan, I doubt China has reserves left, so any counterstrike will push them back quickly and possibly have to abandon the landing in Taiwan as they can't do both at once. They'll have to keep forces near India to
"It takes a long time to prepare a carrier strike group"
Which is why we constantly keep them active all over the world... and only phase one out when we have a new one ready to replace it.
Step 1: divide the US into the political left and right and further polarize through social media
Srep 2: infighting
Step 3: ???
Step 4: profit
and all achieved for america by america.
I would not bet on a military with next to no deployment experience and no naval warfare experience. Also the cutting of sea supply routes would strangle the Chinese. They are dependant upon food imports and do not have a land infrastructure connecting them with their suppliers. Assuming the US sanctions would not have ended that relationship by then....
Thank you! You are so correct china has complete net zero in live battle experience in military officers missiles gen 5 fighter jets ships subs blah blah blah any combat soldier worth his salt will tell you there is absolutely no substitute to have actual warfare on your resume. China's entire military is very immature.
But this lack of food (and oil) is why China needs a navy. Would you not build a navy if you where in their boots?
Yes, historically it has always been a good idea to underestimate your opponent... "do not have a land infrastructure"... Wait what? Where do you come up with this nonsense? China has had land infrastructure connecting it to the rest of the continent since 115 BC. Infact they get most of the food that they don't grow themselves, from other Asian countries and from Europe.
@@RenseBakker sure this why china has imported more grain mostly from india ever since the country existed more flood and drought on there current history still importing more beef them ever i could go on and on china is far from food self sufficient this not my opinion but fact.
@@kenfelix8703 Their Navy is not capable of protecting supply lines that long, which also run through several non friendly controlled chokepoints.
In any case they would take massive supply hits, even if they manage to operate in the Indian Ocean.
It is not a fight worth fighting for them.
I can't help but feel China wouldn't be more intelligent on taiwan, even if it does boil down to force. This event would seriously damage China's trade deals and economy, just to take over a place 1/3rd the size of NY. I know there is massive chip production there, and there is a nationalistic reason, but I'd imagine this is an insane expenditure for them. But hey, who the hell knows
How? With chopsticks.
Most people don't understand the large numbers of fighters like the JF-17, J-11 and now the J-20 that China has. Coupled with their PL-15 radar guided missiles they are at least, if not more than a match for the US legacy fighters that carry the C model aim 120. In particular our block 50 f16s, f15c, and F/A 18 super hornets. The D model is about on par with the PL-15 but in order to get the proper range to compare with JF-17 and J-11 you need fighters that are fast at high altitude, and neither the F/A-18 or the F16 are capable of high mach speeds at altitude when laiden. This gives a massive problem to carrier groups of the U.S. given the low range and engine performance of the super hornets. We have no real interceptor on carriers today. Numbers are also a problem in that theater. China wouldn't attack US bases at all, as the logistics of a long range strike spread out their capabilities and in blue water they aren't quite ready to take on the U.S. Navy. I will say that Taiwan is not off the table though. In fact I believe it to be a probability. It's close enough to China that China can literally bring it's entire air force and navy to bear, and still be inside it's own SAM and ballistic missile umbrella. They can create a situation where American carriers cant be within 1000 miles of their coast which negates naval air power and tomahawk strikes. In order to win that contest, large numbers of American stealth fighters like F22 and f35 would have to be sacrificed to destroy their Sam networks in order to pave the way for legacy birds. The Chinese navy would still be a huge issue though, because the U.S Navy still relies on the harpoon ASM, and outdated, slow, low yield warhead with an inferior range to china's own ASM stockpile. The really problem China WOULD have with the U.S. in this scenario is our alliances with Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Australia, and the U.S. submarine fleet which is by leaps and bounds still the best in the world. You would see close to 40 attack boats doing massive work in that AO within a few weeks. Give them six months to do work on the Chinese navy and follow it with stealth strikes on Sam batteries and ballistic missile sites and the U.S. may stand a chance, at least in the air and offshore. Taiwan, however would most certainly be lost or a complete shell of it's former self.
Speed doesn't really matter in a dog fight, the F/A 18 could beat any of the Chinese fighters (with the exception of the j-20 but who knows) for example, during the Falkland wars the britished used Harriers which were much slower than the argentine Skyhawks, but the Harriers still won most dogfights. Also we have a much larger airforce let alone navy then the Chinese and we have the best fighter the f22, which is most definitely better than there j-20 since the j-20 was based upon the f 35 which has been proven to be worse in air to air the. The f22 and f-16. Plus our navy even with slow missles have better tracking compared to Chinese vessels so we van actually hit our shots quicker since we have eyes on them first. Plus we have many more missles then the Chinese.
@@m1a2abrams34 almost everything you said is wrong. F/A-18 has a great one circle ability and high aoa but it bleeds airspeed and lacks the power to recover. Speed does matter in a dogfight and with you talking about harriers and Skyhawks you're talking about sidewinder fights. You aren't talking about BVR engagements which are the future. And the Chinese navy has far superior missiles to ours. You need to brush up on modern teck if you don't think so.
@@m1a2abrams34 and our combat air forces are almost equivalent in size.
@@full_metal_troy8394 I am not wrong, even with their missles our aircraft are still much more superior and less out dated then the j 15 fighters that are just soviet submissions and migs with different styles which have been proven to be worse then our fighters. And with our AMRAAMS the Chinese have jo shot. Also we definitely don't have a comparable airforce size. Our airforce is the largest in the world and coming in second is our navy. Our navy had more fighter aircraft the. The Chinese airforce. The Chinese have maybe about 3000 aircraft or less, compared.to the 13000 us aircraft in all. I'm just mathematician but 3000 is way less then 13000
@@m1a2abrams34 do more research.
The problem is China doesnt stand a chance because there worst Asian nightmare Japan is onboard with a war with them if they invade Taiwan. Japan has better equipment/air craft and better trained guys. They would have to have a No retreat policy and get 50 percent of there population involved Militarily in order to have a chance to beat the US and Japan. Its possible if they do it right and willing to sacrifice all there money and 3 quarters of there population and get Middle east allies/North Korea involved and make sure Russia stays out of it. Then its possible.
_Terrorising terror was the best job I ever had_
Fyi, in the Rand corporation computer simulations with respect to a shooting war over Taiwan, things look much differently than what you are discussing here (a Ph.D. Aerospace Engineer who works for a large American defense contractor.
Just look at those arrogance morons, their ignorance has just increases the risk of war.
I just turned 16 and i am hoping to go to college majoring in aerospace. what company do you work for?
@@spaace.938 Hi Spaace...good for you. I assume you are already taking the honors math and science courses in H.S., it is really all about scoring well on the SAT's and your GPA to get yourself accepted (hopefully with some scholarship money) to one of the top Engineering Colleges. I retired from Lockheed Martin in 2016 but have been doing contract work with Raytheon and Northrop Grumman the last three years in Melbourne Fl. But I am about to hang up my spurs, I turn 65 in just two months and to be honest I don't have the mental or physical edge I had as a younger man. Being an Engineer is a very demanding but fun job. Good luck in your college and career aspirations. If I could give one piece of advice re: your Engineering major. I would recommend you consider Computer or Software Engineering as your undergrad degree with AE electives or some additional AE course work and then get your grad degree in AE. Everything today is all about the software.
@@stevefowler2112 Thank you so much for responding. I am in advanced math and thinking about going a year ahead in science. Thanks for the advice on taking computer science.
@@lawrence227 War can be an accident. Well lets just take advantage of our mistake, now that we made it.
I like this channel for its objectivity, no pro china shit, no pro america non sense, bravo...
China doesn’t have any experience with modern wars. But one thing they fogot to mention, NATO. other countries would have to be involved if the USA gets attacked or if they attack another NATO
China doesnt have nordvpn🤷♂️
Will the USA will tear itself apart for the sake of inclusiveness equality of outcome and diversity and not aptitude, competence, and merit???
Every carrier is worth 2-3 ballistic missiles. I don’t know what they want to achieve with aircraft carriers nowadays
I've done the math, and I'd say that if the war dragged on for more than a few months, the US would win. You can also probably bet that Russia would take this opportunity to attack Ukraine, with the US focused on the Pacific. US allies in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia and Israel would likely clash with Chinese Allies like Iran and Afghanistan, and the war would very easily spill over.
Anyway, I worked out which countries would back which side in the war, not just being allied, but the ones that will actually show support for the war effort in a meaningful way. The US side, or the Allies as I'll refer to them as, have way more going for them in terms of population and GDP that the Sino-Russo Syndicate, or just the Syndicate. The alliances are as follows:
Allies (US Side):
USA
India
Australia
UK
EU
Canada
Japan
Taiwan
Saudi Arabia
Israel
Ukraine
South Korea
Total Population: 2,574,727,000
Total GDP: $47,887,700,000,000
Total Nuclear Warheads: 6,920
Syndicate (China/Russia Side):
China
Russia
Pakistan (Probably)
Afghanistan
Iran
Belarus
North Korea
Total Population: 1,925,099,000
Total GDP: $15,286,953,000,000
Total Nuclear Warheads: 6,970
As you can see, the US would likely win the war, despite massive bloodshed being required to do it.
It’s not over until it’s over.
How do they defeat china trying to invade Taiwan .. Chinese can literally walk into the islands near the coast. A mainland invasion wd only be defeated with subs and planes but the carriers wd be sitting ducks
It seems unlikely any major country would go all out . Considering loss to gain ratio , it would have to get really bad to start that fire
At best both countries cam defend themselves. Can't invade or subdue each other.
It would be funny if Xi Jinping used theese videos as diy tutorials
An invasion of Okinawa before or during an invasion of Taiwan?! I only wish the Chinese would be that stupid. But they aren't, so they'd save their resources for Taiwan.
Are you assuming that this war will only being China against the US? Because any war America will be in will include its allies. China will be sanction heavily. China does not have any combat experience. I would say that the Chinese military equipment will be substandard too.
Imagine if China invaded Taiwan, an Americans came to help. It would be so hard to tell who's who because they're both technically the same people. 😂
I'm sure the Chinese who don't speak egglish will think this is a real cenareal. 🤣😂🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
China is carefully studying Russias woes in Ukraine and will not make same mistakes. Everyone is upping their game. Hope it doesn't happen. It will make Russia and Ukraine war look like a kid fight.
Modern USA following the same path as Soviet Union, while modern China is like 1930s USA
Not really. China has no innovation. Just copies stuff.
China copies everyone so 0 innovation
@@fadoobabachina is dumb because she can only copy
USA is more dumb because they allow China to copy
Other countries are the DUMBEST because they can't even copy
Copying is the starting point of innovation. Instead of spending more on making something original, copying something that works, and modifying it to what suits them later, and improve upon it, is far more cost effective. School teaches us cheating doesn't make you win, but that's a whole different story in war.
@@guycross493 “improve”
China could absolutely win a war vs US just by sitting there and eating popcorn.
i just don't get it, why a powerful country would want to attack anyone. why would they need a small country like tiwan or what ever. i just can't get my mind over it, why would a huge country would need to fight any small country in the world, what is the point.
One thing about it all is China may have a bigger military but they have never been challenged and they are inexperienced our military is constantly challenged and very experienced we are constantly at war and no matter how stupid our president is I think our wonderful military will do what ever they have to do to survive and win
The plan needs to land its massive army on America shoes. We have a lot of really big trees here. The Brits tried that once. Ask them how that turned out for them.
All those balloons... Helium is a limited resource.
We already fought them to a draw in the Korean War.
Every aspect of every scenario would be disastrous.
This has literally nothing to do with how modern warfare works, your scenario is completely unrealistic compared to how it actually works.
China would never be able to become the super power it wishes it could be and over the throw worlds number one super power country. He'll I'm not even from the usa and know that's the world's strongest country undefeated in war
Instead of attacking small but well defended island Taiwan, China can easily conquer much larger country like Mongolia.
Where's vault Tec we need them
That's only if china's hardware/equipment is not falling apart.
I think a strike on Okinawa would almost 100% drag Japan into a conflict
💯
You military forecast about China 10 years time does not not take into account that the US military forces will also be more deadly given that the US military budget is presently three times that of China and also China's economy is more likely to decline during that time given the present geopolitical dynamics in consideration regarding the global confidence in present supply chain apparatus, These considerations will impact China's military enhancement's ambitions.
I dont think the US will be deploying 2 aircraft carriers that method are applied to other countries but this is CHINA the moment the war start the US would focus on china and probably won't take them lightly but yeah point taken
I think I have an idea of how the USA can counter, if China does attack it would most likely put so much strain on an already dwindling population which would in turn ripple into the economic and internal welfare of the state. Essentially, the USA would only need to buy time enough for China to expand its full economy into the war, as we have seen before authoritarian states have often had rigid inflexible economies and In China's case, that is their only weapon as of writing. Contrast this with how the United States was able to pick up the production and economic output of the USSR and axis powers during ww2, it would only need to bleed china long enough by hindering supply lines and exports.
Btw this was literally off the top of my head so I doubt it would work lol
All of this talk about the USA fighting and winning a war with China using conventional weapons presupposes that there would be no use of nuclear weapons, even when China or the USA were at the point of losing the war using conventional weapons. This strikes me as a doctrine based upon wishful thinking.
It's realistic because only USSR and US (Cold War era) understood MAD and adhered to it, China thinks it can go kinetic and that US will not escalate to nuclear.
@@johnwest5957 That was the same mistake Japan made in 1941. They were aiso engaged in wishful thinking.
To suggest China could fight a war on two fronts (Taiwan and US) simultaneously is ludicrous. The whole world will be on high alert once the troop build up starts - they would need around 2.5 million soldiers to invade Taiwan plus thousands of troop carrying ships - so the chances of catching the US napping are minimal. All their assets would be tied up in the fight against Taiwan so they’d having nothing left to direct against the US. There are some really interesting papers online, published by military people (not UA-cam idiots), which put a very different perspective on China’s power and its ability to project it.
Reported for treason
Scary how close this coming war seems
Don't f India will join in to so china will have a difficult time get troops over there which will lead to a logistical headache
Much of the China made 'things' I have are very poor quality build.
Perhaps just wait for china's military equipment to fall apart 3months after warranty.
I don’t so China lost the war in Vietnam, China just scared small country,not Vietnam
Isnt Taiwan a part of China? What are you even talking about?
They could demolish the entire navy with a battalion of oil tankers just crashing into us ships
Hypersonic nukes. That’s what would happen.
I know you are a smart guy, but I'll bet you.that if you are thinking of these scenarios, safe to say the Pentagon is too, and probably thousands of others that we would have no idea about.
apocalypse begins now
this would be a conflict mirroring Japan WW2
they would try to bait and isolate the US fleets first, remembering that this would at a time and place of their choosing, with a strength they generate
what the US should do is move more battle groups into the Pacific, muster its allies, UK and Australia into assisting in strength
if the US stays south of the first line of islands in the Pacific, thats going to make it very hard for China to manoeuvre as it might mean engaging other countries
key to all this was the same in WW2, the submarines will do half the damage at much less losses, I guess thats how Australia sees it too
limit fuel and logistics, stretch the time of endurance, strike when theyre not ready for you to strike
On a side note, the United States had stealth capabilities in the 1970s. 60 years later they likely have FAR more superior weapons. The United states would not simply allow China to surpass the US
Yeah because a Chinese trade ship could dash past the 7th fleet lmao
At the beginning of WW2 Germany and Japan had a larger and better military than the US.
China can’t even beat Japan bruh
The US couldn't even beat a gang of goat herders in Afghanistan. 😂😂😂
THEY HAVE NO COMBAT EXPERIENCE LOL.
Lol, the US and her allies fly stealth fighters and bombers. PLA Airforce fly targets.
When will humans learn..?
How China 🇨🇳 can win the war just ask Vietnam 🇻🇳 war in 1979 between China and Vietnam.
*well afganistan (poorest country on earth) won USA who has no airforce! imagine China*
Btw it's "et cetera" not "ex cetera"
Usa is already ready in jp and Oceania
I believe you’re overestimating China’s abilities it’s not like their gender roles and commanders know how to strategically fight a war in the air or in the blue sea when is the last time they have fought that type of war, never
China win a war vs US? You don't know China nor the US.
C17 rapid dragon + lazrm