Generational Dynamics World View News

Discussion of Web Log and Analysis topics from the Generational Dynamics web site.
Navigator
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Navigator »

I have been mostly encouraged by the exchange of ideas here recently. I especially appreciate being able to learn more of views and insights from Asia, as it has been a while since I was regularly visited the region.

Here in the USA, I don't see the current disruptions leading to anything other than emboldening our enemies. They will think that America is "coming apart at the seams", which it isn't, and will think that our domestic troubles will somehow prevent us from dealing with aggression overseas.

I fully agree with John that the vast majority of Americans are still patriotic, and that they will stand up to foreign aggression. When it comes, I believe it will unify most of the country.

I think we will have a serious domestic problem during the coming World War, but it will not be a "civil war", but an insurrection by a violent minority. A minority that actually wants some kind of dictatorship to "force" people to believe a certain dogma.

Guest

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Guest »

I think we will have a serious domestic problem during the coming World War, but it will not be a "civil war", but an insurrection by a violent minority. A minority that actually wants some kind of dictatorship to "force" people to believe a certain dogma.
And the liberal progressives will win and destroy American society.

Trevor
Posts: 1209
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:43 am

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Trevor »

I've looked at both Taiwan's and China's current military capability, so I have a few thoughts on it.

I don't believe China would be able to conceal an invasion, as it would require hundreds of ballistic and cruise missile systems as part of an opening attack. They'd hit every airfield, naval base, and vessel they could. Taiwan would have ample warning, although some of their aircraft would be caught on the ground. You can't keep every plane in the air all the time.

China greatly outnumbers Taiwan in terms of its naval forces, air forces, and ground forces. That being said, Taiwan's capable of inflicting heavy losses on them. In fact, 20 years ago, i would even say they were capable of repelling a Chinese invasion without outside help.

However, I no longer believe that's the case. China would suffer enormous losses, but they've made it clear people are a mere resource to be expended. They will call up reserves, even use civilian boats to transport troops to the island should it prove necessary.

And I believe Taiwan knows they're not going to be able to stop China from establishing a beachhead. However, the island is mountainous, providing ample opportunity for guerilla warfare, and if I was part of the Taiwanese military, I'd ensure there were hundreds of hidden caches of weapons buried so deep China could never find them. China would lose tens of thousands of their troops securing territory in Taiwan, maybe more taking over the major population centers.

Even so, if Taiwan fought alone, they would lose the fight. And our intervention is an open question. The United States is very much in a mood of: "Screw foreign entanglements; let people deal with their own problems!" The attitude dominates both conservatives and progressives. We'd find ourselves in a position where if we intervene, it'll be a bloody war, but if we don't, we send a message to the world that American protection means nothing.

China would certainly threaten us with force not to get involved in an internal matter, perhaps cutting off medical supplies or other crucial items. However, let's say. . . they offer an agreement where all debt we owe them will be forgiven in exchange for not assisting Taiwan. It'd be a tempting offer for some, especially with an anti-intervention mood. Our government is paralyzed with the knowledge we have two impossible choices in front of us, which would likely end in a bitter partisan battle as Taiwan falls. Japan would likely be in a similar situation, arguing between a clear danger and their Post-WWII pledge not to declare war.

Our assistance is far from guaranteed, though refusal would have untold consequences. The Philippines would be a prime target for China. Their military is far weaker than Taiwan's, underequipped and poorly trained, Moreover, their strategic location would be an excellent buffer state against the U.S. Navy, where they could station thousands of anti-ship missiles in opposition to us.

The question is: how effective are China's "carrier killers"? I've read many articles on the topic, with varying opinions of how deadly they are. I've seen the massive crater in a desert test against our carrier, but there's a difference between that and how well they perform under battlefield conditions. I expect we won't have a true answer until they're actually used.

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by John »

** 08-Jun-2020 World View: China vs Taiwan
Trevor wrote:
Mon Jun 08, 2020 10:40 pm
> I've looked at both Taiwan's and China's current military
> capability, so I have a few thoughts on it.

> I don't believe China would be able to conceal an invasion, as it
> would require hundreds of ballistic and cruise missile systems as
> part of an opening attack. They'd hit every airfield, naval base,
> and vessel they could. Taiwan would have ample warning, although
> some of their aircraft would be caught on the ground. You can't
> keep every plane in the air all the time.

> China greatly outnumbers Taiwan in terms of its naval forces, air
> forces, and ground forces. That being said, Taiwan's capable of
> inflicting heavy losses on them. In fact, 20 years ago, i would
> even say they were capable of repelling a Chinese invasion without
> outside help.

> However, I no longer believe that's the case. China would suffer
> enormous losses, but they've made it clear people are a mere
> resource to be expended. They will call up reserves, even use
> civilian boats to transport troops to the island should it prove
> necessary.

> And I believe Taiwan knows they're not going to be able to stop
> China from establishing a beachhead. However, the island is
> mountainous, providing ample opportunity for guerilla warfare, and
> if I was part of the Taiwanese military, I'd ensure there were
> hundreds of hidden caches of weapons buried so deep China could
> never find them. China would lose tens of thousands of their
> troops securing territory in Taiwan, maybe more taking over the
> major population centers.

> Even so, if Taiwan fought alone, they would lose the fight. And
> our intervention is an open question. The United States is very
> much in a mood of: "Screw foreign entanglements; let people deal
> with their own problems!" The attitude dominates both
> conservatives and progressives. We'd find ourselves in a position
> where if we intervene, it'll be a bloody war, but if we don't, we
> send a message to the world that American protection means
> nothing.

> China would certainly threaten us with force not to get involved
> in an internal matter, perhaps cutting off medical supplies or
> other crucial items. However, let's say. . . they offer an
> agreement where all debt we owe them will be forgiven in exchange
> for not assisting Taiwan. It'd be a tempting offer for some,
> especially with an anti-intervention mood. Our government is
> paralyzed with the knowledge we have two impossible choices in
> front of us, which would likely end in a bitter partisan battle as
> Taiwan falls. Japan would likely be in a similar situation,
> arguing between a clear danger and their Post-WWII pledge not to
> declare war.

> Our assistance is far from guaranteed, though refusal would have
> untold consequences. The Philippines would be a prime target for
> China. Their military is far weaker than Taiwan's, underequipped
> and poorly trained, Moreover, their strategic location would be an
> excellent buffer state against the U.S. Navy, where they could
> station thousands of anti-ship missiles in opposition to us.

> The question is: how effective are China's "carrier killers"? I've
> read many articles on the topic, with varying opinions of how
> deadly they are. I've seen the massive crater in a desert test
> against our carrier, but there's a difference between that and how
> well they perform under battlefield conditions. I expect we won't
> have a true answer until they're actually used.
That's a really great analysis.

However, on one point I would disagree -- and I know we've discussed
this in the past.

You say: "The United States is very much in a mood of: "Screw foreign
entanglements; let people deal with their own problems!""

A Chinese attack on Taiwan would be a generational Regeneracy event,
and we'd be at war with China within 24 hours.

If you'd like a recent example, after 9/11/2001, we were at war with
Afghanistan by the end of the day. The Democrats hated Bush, but they
didn't object to the military response. Compare the Democratic
response to the Afghan war with their response to the Iraq war.

That's why I keep saying that the war won't begin with some massive
invasion, like the invasion of Poland or the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
It will begin with some minor event, like the Marco Polo Bridge
incident, that spirals into full-scale war over time.

Navigator
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Navigator »

Trevor,

I don't think our opinions are too far off. Taiwan would be a difficult "nut to crack" for the Communist Chinese Army (PLA). They will lose a lot in taking it.

There will be some warning, as the Chinese will have to mass military resources in order to pull it off. BTW, mobilizing and/or massing troops and ammunition is what is referred to in the bible as a "rumor of war" (rumor in this case is not "hearsay", but rather the precursor that tips people off that a war is coming).

Now to get at some of the questions you bring up.

First is that the PLA will have to ensure that their navy can provide them relatively safe access to the crossing. I believe one of the initial primary targets is the Pescadores, as this provides a good staging area. I also think the Gold coast beach and the Tainan City Airport are the initial primary objectives in Taiwan proper.

If we intervene (which I think we will try, and which will widen the war to the rest of Asia) they will have to take out our Carriers.

This could lead to a long discussion of why this is possible. But I will try to get to the point quickly. In WW1, the main naval weapon was the battleship gun. This was at least a 11 inch, long barreled artillery piece on a heavily armored ship. By the end of the war, it was a 15 inch gun, with a massive shell. In WW2, this was superseded by carrier launched attack aircraft. This is still the USN's primary means of attacking and sinking enemy ships.

The problem is that the carrier launched aircraft has been superseded today (this will be debated until weapons are actually used) by surface to surface and air/surface missiles. This has been the case for decades. Its just that there are only a few instances of naval combat since WW2 to show this. The weapons today (see the Russian/Indian Brahoms missle, the Russian SSN-27 or 30, and, especially the Chinese YJ-91) have incredible capabilities. These kinds of missiles can fly low (sea skimming) using a turbojet for a hundred miles or so. They have multiple sensor capabilities, active radar, passive radar, infrared homing, and so on. If you try to jam them, they can home in on the jamming signal. When they are close to the target, a terminal rocket or even ramjet accelerates them to Mach 3 or higher. Hundreds would be launched simultaneously at a Carrier task force.

The carrier and its escorts could shoot down dozens. But they aren't going to shoot down all of them or even the majority.

The non Carrier ships in the task force that get hit are going to really get damaged. Look at what a single 1980s exocet missile did to the British ships in the Falkans that got hit by them. The Carrier itself doesn't need to be sunk. All you have to do it make it incapable of launching aircraft. And to do this, all it takes is a fire. A couple of planes catching fire is usually all it takes. Yes, they will put the fire out, but the carrier is inoperative for hours. Worse would be damage to the flight deck or elevators. And a bunch of missile hits are going to do this.

On top of this, the Chinese also have high precision guided ballistic missile warheads that the USN cannot shoot down. One or two of these, and the carrier needs 6 months in port (minimum) to fix the flight deck.

To cut to the chase, surface naval combatants are mostly obsolete. Anything that floats can now carry viable anti shipping missiles. See this scary article on shipping containers being used as the missile holders.

https://freebeacon.com/national-securit ... container/

So, I think that with enough anti ship missiles, the Chinese navy can clear a corridor to Taiwan for the PLA.

Yes, the Nationalist Chinese will fight, and fight hard, and it will be a bloodbath. And yes, the Nationalists will take to the hills if it comes to that, which I think it will.

But the CCP and the PLA will be in it for the long term. And the long term means that the true nature of modern warfare will come into play. By this I mean that real wars are not just between Armies, but between entire populations. To this end, the CCP will starve Taiwan if they are dealing with a guerrilla war in the mountains. They will just stop feeding the population. And seeing everyone starve will cause the Nationalist Army to surrender.

Everyone in Asia dependent on shipping for importing food is going to have a BIG problem. And that is that large slow-moving cargo ships will be impossible to protect.

Navigator
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Navigator »

I should probably write an in-depth article for John and for my own blog about "what would I do if I were the Chinese Military".

It will take me at least a week.

Guest

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Guest »

Navigator wrote:
Mon Jun 08, 2020 11:38 pm
I should probably write an in-depth article for John and for my own blog about "what would I do if I were the Chinese Military".

It will take me at least a week.
Yes, please do. Please provide a link.

Guest

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Guest »

Everyone in Asia dependent on shipping for importing food is going to have a BIG problem. And that is that large slow-moving cargo ships will be impossible to protect.
China is DEPENDENT on food imports. How do you stockpile food for 1.4 billion people? You can't. The Chinese don't even have a dependable fresh water supply. The entire country is a toxic waste dump. On top of that, the ground water is almost tapped out in Manchuria and other parts of the country. China had a wide variety of Achilles' heels.

Navigator
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Navigator »

Starvation is how China will ultimately be defeated. You can't conquer and occupy China.

Guest

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Guest »

Japan did well in China (1911-1945). They created several puppet states and conquered most of the country. It was only defeat at the hands of America which saved China. Foreign powers always play the various ethnic groups off against each other. It works. It could work again.

Arm the Tibetans, the East Turkmen, the Taiwanese, and the Hong Kongers. Trump has the guts to do it. Biden would do nothing and watch Asia be invaded.

The time for talk is over.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests