Future War with (Red) China Hypotheticals/Theorycrafting

ATP

Well-known member




Wonder what changed? What possible supplier via overland routes could exist...


Yes,soviets are selling to China,anybody knew that.Which do not change fact,that the same China consider soviet Siberia as their lost property,and would take it again when soviets become weak enough.
Which mean,after they completly lost war on Ukraine.

Becouse US Navy would still sink their fleet if they try invade Taivan now - so,they wait for USA economical fall .

You forget,that for China it is not decision what they should take - Taiwan OR Siberia.They want BOTH,and take them when it would be safe.
Siberia in few years,Taiwan when USA fall.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Yes,soviets are selling to China,anybody knew that.Which do not change fact,that the same China consider soviet Siberia as their lost property,and would take it again when soviets become weak enough.
Which mean,after they completly lost war on Ukraine.

Becouse US Navy would still sink their fleet if they try invade Taivan now - so,they wait for USA economical fall .

You forget,that for China it is not decision what they should take - Taiwan OR Siberia.They want BOTH,and take them when it would be safe.
Siberia in few years,Taiwan when USA fall.

I don't see any reason to think China wants Siberia, particularly in the context of the "Soviets" still having the larger nuclear weapons capacity. Specific to the issue of Taiwan, also that's going to be a no:

There’s another concern for some American officials: that the United States does not have the industrial capacity to sustain a longer war with China, which maintains the world’s largest steel and shipbuilding industries. “Who can rebuild their losses faster?” a senior military officer said. “Who can lay steel for new ships? Who can make carbon fibre faster for new aircraft? Aircraft carriers? Against China, we’re not in a position to take one for one.” The problem, experts say, stretches across the spectrum of manufacturing capability; a recent report by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, an American research firm, said that, in a war with China, the U.S. Air Force would run out of advanced long-range munitions in less than two weeks.​

 
  • Like
Reactions: Poe

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Ah yes.
Because they know that the best time to destroy the enemies air force is when it is on the ground.
Because that is the only way they threaten it.
Good to know you arnt completely stupid when it comes to military doctrine
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Ah yes.
Because they know that the best time to destroy the enemies air force is when it is on the ground.
Because that is the only way they threaten it.
Good to know you arnt completely stupid when it comes to military doctrine

Except for the multiple exercises we've run since 2008 which show they beat us in air clashes over Taiwan, the fact PLAAF pilots are better trained and the Navy and Air Force say the J-20 is basically equal to the F-35? You seem to have missed the fact the USAF recently announced they've given up on air superiority in the First Island Chain in favor of mutual air denial; they literally can't compete with the Chinese there anymore. The fact they're moving air assets out is indicative of how highly they rate PLA fires generation, because bases in the Second Island Chain simply can't reach the First.
 

ATP

Well-known member
I don't see any reason to think China wants Siberia, particularly in the context of the "Soviets" still having the larger nuclear weapons capacity. Specific to the issue of Taiwan, also that's going to be a no:

There’s another concern for some American officials: that the United States does not have the industrial capacity to sustain a longer war with China, which maintains the world’s largest steel and shipbuilding industries. “Who can rebuild their losses faster?” a senior military officer said. “Who can lay steel for new ships? Who can make carbon fibre faster for new aircraft? Aircraft carriers? Against China, we’re not in a position to take one for one.” The problem, experts say, stretches across the spectrum of manufacturing capability; a recent report by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, an American research firm, said that, in a war with China, the U.S. Air Force would run out of advanced long-range munitions in less than two weeks.​



You should read book of people who worked in China.Every chineese treat at least part of Siberia as China property,and children in chineese schools learn,that it is chineese territory.

They are merely patient - why risk war now,if in 5-10 years they could take Siberia with little effort?

About Taiwan - China would lost war on sea with undamaged USA - so,they helped Biden take power.And wait,till he turn USA into socialist dystopia.
After that,China could take whatever they want - if India and Japan do not object.

You mistaken China with soviet psychopats,who are loosing on Ukraine now - China do not start wars with enemy capable of fighting,but made him weak using politics and attack then.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
You should read book of people who worked in China.Every chineese treat at least part of Siberia as China property,and children in chineese schools learn,that it is chineese territory.

They are merely patient - why risk war now,if in 5-10 years they could take Siberia with little effort?

Or we can deduce this unnamed book is without merit by the fact it apparently doesn't even know it's spelled as Chinese and not "Chineese" in English.

About Taiwan - China would lost war on sea with undamaged USA - so,they helped Biden take power.And wait,till he turn USA into socialist dystopia.
After that,China could take whatever they want - if India and Japan do not object.

You mistaken China with soviet psychopats,who are loosing on Ukraine now - China do not start wars with enemy capable of fighting,but made him weak using politics and attack then.

Putting aside your weird conspiracy theories as baseless, you can instead look at Chinese military production, training and technology to say they can definitely win a direct conflict, are moving to do exactly that and the U.S. is responding to that new reality. Back in October, the U.S. 7th Fleet commander said they had the capacity to enforce a blockade around Taiwan, were outproducing us in warships and had closed the quality gap. U.S. Air Force has since said they would not seek to achieve air superiority over Taiwan, began moving assets out of forward operating bases and stated Chinese tech has closed the quality gap; their pilots are also better trained than ours.

None of this is consistent with the idea the Chinese cannot win a direct confrontation.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Or we can deduce this unnamed book is without merit by the fact it apparently doesn't even know it's spelled as Chinese and not "Chineese" in English.



Putting aside your weird conspiracy theories as baseless, you can instead look at Chinese military production, training and technology to say they can definitely win a direct conflict, are moving to do exactly that and the U.S. is responding to that new reality. Back in October, the U.S. 7th Fleet commander said they had the capacity to enforce a blockade around Taiwan, were outproducing us in warships and had closed the quality gap. U.S. Air Force has since said they would not seek to achieve air superiority over Taiwan, began moving assets out of forward operating bases and stated Chinese tech has closed the quality gap; their pilots are also better trained than ours.

None of this is consistent with the idea the Chinese cannot win a direct confrontation.

1.Since book was writen by polish teacher in China in polish language,you could blame me for translating.
Which still do not change fact,that chineese children learn,that Siberia is China property.
Your childlis barbs do not change that.

2.Maybe.Maybe not - question is,WHY CHINA SHOULD RISK WAR WITH USA NOW - WHEN THEY COULD WIN EASILY AFTER 10-2- YEARS?
They are not soviet psychos - but people planning in generations.Especially,taht thanks to putin folly they could take Siberia now.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
1.Since book was writen by polish teacher in China in polish language,you could blame me for translating.
Which still do not change fact,that chineese children learn,that Siberia is China property.
Your childlis barbs do not change that.

No barbs are needed to point out the logical holes in a, as yet unnamed book, wrote by a "Polish teacher" who apparently was interviewing a handful of random Chinese people. In a country of over one billion, particularly without interviewing senior officials, there's no society wide conclusions to be drawn there.

2.Maybe.Maybe not - question is,WHY CHINA SHOULD RISK WAR WITH USA NOW - WHEN THEY COULD WIN EASILY AFTER 10-2- YEARS?
They are not soviet psychos - but people planning in generations.Especially,taht thanks to putin folly they could take Siberia now.

I don't think it will be "now" in the immediate term, but mid to late this decade it seems like. We already know their satellite and missile capabilities are effectively closing the United States out of the First Island Chain:

 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
No barbs are needed to point out the logical holes in a, as yet unnamed book, wrote by a "Polish teacher" who apparently was interviewing a handful of random Chinese people. In a country of over one billion, particularly without interviewing senior officials, there's no society wide conclusions to be drawn there.



I don't think it will be "now" in the immediate term, but mid to late this decade it seems like. We already know their satellite and missile capabilities are effectively closing the United States out of the First Island Chain:



1.He was teaching in chineese school/English language/
and,he discovered few things about his pupils after they start trusting him enough to talk sincerely:

1A they are racists - chineese are choosen race,and blacks are not even fully human beings.
1B. They are nationalists - Tibet is their property,just like Taiwan and Siberia.
3.C - they had maps on which chineese childrfen learn,that Siberia is theirs.

2.Why fight at all,if they belive,that USA would fall about 2040? for the same reasons they do not attacked soviets yet - China leaders belive,rightly or not,that both soviets and USA collapse,and that they would take what they want after that.

We would see in 2040,if they are right or not.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
1.He was teaching in chineese school/English language/
and,he discovered few things about his pupils after they start trusting him enough to talk sincerely:

Okay, so his idea is...solely based on what children say?

1A they are racists - chineese are choosen race,and blacks are not even fully human beings.
1B. They are nationalists - Tibet is their property,just like Taiwan and Siberia.
3.C - they had maps on which chineese childrfen learn,that Siberia is theirs.

Cool, where is proof of these maps being widespread?

2.Why fight at all,if they belive,that USA would fall about 2040? for the same reasons they do not attacked soviets yet - China leaders belive,rightly or not,that both soviets and USA collapse,and that they would take what they want after that.

We would see in 2040,if they are right or not.

They will be inclined to fight because the U.S. isn't controlled by Chinese agents and will probably seek to prevent Taiwan from slipping out of its sphere, at least until its electronics industry is moved to the U.S. safely.



 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Okay, so his idea is...solely based on what children say?



Cool, where is proof of these maps being widespread?



They will be inclined to fight because the U.S. isn't controlled by Chinese agents and will probably seek to prevent Taiwan from slipping out of its sphere, at least until its electronics industry is moved to the U.S. safely.





1.Teenagers,and all aduly chineese he speak.They all are racists and nationalists - and belive,that Siberia is theirs,just like Taiwan.They are simply patient enough to not start war now,like some moscov idiot.
2.In all China schools he checked.
3.And since when Biden seriously fought China? You mistaken him with Trump.Words are nothing.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Taiwan reintroducing the one year long conscription, bumping it up from the four months it was reduced to.

New Bloom said:
Males in Taiwan have historically had to serve two to three years in the military, after the KMT came to Taiwan. This was decreased to one year in 2008 and reduced to only four months in 2013 during the Ma administration, with the military turned into a mainly volunteer force.

 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Vietnam is expanding its possessions in the Spratley Islands through the (recently) time honored tradition of dredging and landfilling. In just the last six months alone they've expanded their holdings by 420 acres of newly 'created' land which far eclipses the 120 acres they created in the previous ten years.


These efforts however are still dwarfed by the Chinese who dredged up over three thousand acres of land in just a three year period of time in 2013-16 which was dubbed the "Great Wall of Sand." China is accused of continuing other dredging and landfilling operations as part of its operations to militarize and cement (no pun intended) control over the disputed area still.

 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Interesting Article on the Expansion of Capabilities, Challenges and Operations of the Southeast Asian countries being threatened by Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea and balancing it with their relationship with the Beijing regime. Talks about the recent developments with the Coast Guard and civilian maritime law enforcement agencies of Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia and Brunei... even though Brunei hasn't confronted China yet in the maritime theater.

One of the insights is on how the previous Philippines President, Rodrigo Duterte, pursued a policy of appeasement in regards to China which the latter quickly took advantage of as they always do.

USNI said:
The Philippines is perhaps the most interesting case. In the early days of the administration of then-President Rodrigo Duterte, Philippine policy toward the South China Sea disputes and China in general was characterized as appeasement. Duterte manifested this approach by traveling to Beijing not long after winning the election, announcing his government would "set aside" the 2016 arbitral award on the South China Sea, axing or downscaling some bilateral military exercises with the United States, engaging in joint energy exploration talks with China, and downplaying instances of belligerent Chinese behavior toward Filipino fishermen.

It was not until after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Chinese boat swarm incident at Whitsun Reef that there was a significant change in the Duterte administration's policy. In early 2021, following reports of more than 200 Chinese fishing vessels moored at Whitsun Reef and the emergence of numerous Chinese vessels, including naval and coast guard, in the Philippine EEZ, Manila began responding with uncharacteristic vigor. Notwithstanding capacity limitations, the Philippine Navy, Coast Guard, and Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources mobilized assets and manpower to monitor the situation.8 In some instances, the Philippine maritime forces boldly challenged their Chinese counterparts, despite concerns that the latter could use China's Coast Guard Law for retaliation.

Also provides some suggestions as to what the countries could do to improve their situation, such as the countries coming together to build their own light shipbuilding capacity such as for smaller patrol boats to simplify operations and logistics and working together to improve 'MDA' or Maritime Domain Awareness.

USNI said:
Absent a more significant U.S. and allied intervention, the asymmetry in maritime force levels between Southeast Asian countries and China will persist. Measures to help these countries increase their indigenous shipbuilding capacities will help them build their own offshore patrol vessels. Economies of scale could be achieved if regional navies and coast guards adopted common platforms that could be built in quantity. For example, an offshore patrol vessel might be built in a Malaysian shipyard for multiple regional navies, while a smaller coastal patrol vessel design might be built in the Philippines. Such common designs would lead to lower per-unit procurement and maintenance costs and greater interoperability.

 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
India and the Philippines are planning to sign a memorandum of understanding to increase the maritime cooperation between the two countries. This'll include the planned implementation of standard operating procedures between the Philippines Coast Guard and the Indian Navy and enhanced maritime cooperation between both countries Coast Guards. India has already established similar agreements with Japan, Korea, Oman, Vietnam and Bangladesh.

 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Philippines and Japan have agreed to hold talks pertaining to developing defense agreements in the near future.

Kishida, the Prime Minister of Japan, is on an official visit to the Philippines and one of the items on the agenda is improving defense cooperation between the two countries and to strengthen 'trilateral' cooperation between their countries and the United States as well.

What is being discussed specifically is a 'troop pact' similar to the agreements the Philippines has with the United States where a legal framework can be implemented where Japanese troops can be deployed to the Philippines on a constant rotational basis.

Japan also granted Philippines $4 million in military aid in the near future and also delivered an air surveillance radar to the Philippines a few years ago purchased under contract.

 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
India's Ambassador to the Philippines stated the $375 million deal to deliver the Philippines its BrahMos Cruise Missiles in on track. Expected reception of the missiles was to be December of this year, so next month and was for three batteries worth of BrahMos antiship cruise missiles.


The Indian Ambassador also stated they are proposing an offer of Helicopters for the Philippines Coast Guard made by Hindustan Aeronautics and the same models in use by the Indian Coast Guard and Navy that can be used for disaster relief, search and rescue and other humanitarian purposes as well as reconnaissance and patrol.

 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
America and Filipino Aircraft Already Performing Joint Patrols together mere days after Philippines President Marcos Jr. Announced More Cooperation with American forces including joint patrols. Operating over northern Luzon and the West Philippine Sea.





American F-15C's and C-130's along with Filipino FA-50's.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
A bit of actual theoretical war crafting between China and Tiawan. I've never seen this brought up before, but once your aware of it it seems pretty obvious to me, so its probably not as unique a thought than I think.

The essence of the idea is to slow roll the war and engage in steady escalation, partially to limit risk by making the ability to back out if things go bad, and to work against the short term limits of American power and attention.

The idea is to start small and limited with "gentle" pokes to test American and Taiwanese resolve and ability. This is by going after, one at a time, the obvious targets to go after: the immediate islands controlled by Tiawan off the coast of China.

Kinmen%2CMatsu%2CWuciou.png


The first obvious target is Wuciou, at least by my look. Its a small island of roughly 1 square km with 600 people and a seemingly small garrison. Its roughly 20 km from a major Chinese island, and 30 km from the mainland proper. Putting it just within long range conventional artillery range, and I believe their amphibious attack vehicles like the Type 05 should be able to drive off a mainland beach onto a beach on the island, if there are any good land zones.

Aircraft, Drones, and helicopters reaching the location would be trivial. This makes the location relatively easy to attack from China and hard to defend from Taiwan.

Thus, China can engineer some crisis around it to poke Taiwan and hopefully put it into a bind. If they move troops forward, they negate much of the advantage of their defensible position. Expanding the war might open other options to fight in better locations, but is massively more risky for Taiwan than fighting a limited fight around Wuciou.

If Taiwan gives up that island without a fight, that gives at least some experience and testing the abilities of the Chinese army, demoralizes Taiwan, and adjusts the West to the idea that China is going to get Taiwan.

If Taiwan resists, and the result is an embarrassing outcome, China can pull back with minimal overall cost, like previous cross straight crisis. And if Taiwan resists and an outcome occurs that's favorable to China, China is still not necesarily in a position where mass war is required and can choose how to exploit its victory, moving on to another island right away, or negotiating some temporary additional benefit.

Ideally, it would be clear within roughly 6 months the outcome of the Wuciou crisis and where to advance from there.

If continuing to push makes sense, next target is the Matsu islands. These are much more substantial, with 5 major islands and 12,000 people, though still only roughly 30 km^2. If Taiwan intends to militarily resist Chinese takeover, I would expect Taiwan to make some resistance here. Still, fighting here plays to China's potential strengths and undermines Taiwans. If Taiwan pours a 100,000 men to defend these islands, fighting them here is better than on Formosa. And its still and easier place to walk back if things go bad.

The ideal outcome, besides Taiwan giving up without a fight, is to tie down the entire Taiwanese army onto tiny islands to be shelled and airstrike to death over a year or two, a year or two of war which stresses Taiwanese finance and moral, American Attention span, and for moral and financial strain to have effects: if Taiwan looks doomed, or fighting China looks too much like a meat grinder, 6 month to a year is probably the range of time for initial rally to the flag feelings to move off their highs, and people in general start looking to get out, in whichever direction thinks preserves them.

Finally, after the Matsu islands is resolved 1-2 years into the crisis, if it makes sense to keep going the only major island left is Kinman. This is a much more substantial island than any others, 150 km^2 and with a population of 127,000 people. It will be very tempting for Taiwan to try and defend the island, and if it has been left alone for 1-2 years as other battles were ongoing, it would further make it much more tempting move forces forward, which will put them in an area which it will be much more likely to be trapped and destroyed fighting in unfavorable positions.

Thus, under ideal for China situations if fighting is required, you spend 2-3 drawing the Taiwanese army forward where you can inflict 200-300k casualties in a set up unfavorable to Taiwan, over a period of time for economic and moral damage to take hold, and American interest and moral outrage to subside, and a sense of inevitable Chinese victory to seep into Taiwanese and American conciousness. So that Ideally Formosa itself can be ideally taken without a serious fight.

Or, if Taiwanese or American resistance is stronger than expected and Chinese power weaker, China can walk back the crisis without having actually risked all that much.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top