Future War with (Red) China Hypotheticals/Theorycrafting

[History Learner]

I never said anything about who controls it.

We can thus deduce, then, that you are either

A) A Blood Thirsty Manic calling for War Crimes
B) You don't understand anything about warfare in the strategic sense.

You said flags. I am telling you when a country was defeated BY America. And the American flag was never put up.

You're making nonsensical points that have nothing to do with the actual topic; that the American Flag was put up was not the point, but rather that our opponents did put theirs up; this is euphemism to say they won.

BTW, America took out Japan with less losses.

Cool, and the relevancy is?

guess what, USSR also had support from America by dividing the Eastern front into a two front war.

Cool, and the relevancy is?

but obviously, more deaths equals win, wait...how did did US win WW2 then? How did Nirth Korea and China fail to take the whole pen? They obviously had more numbers....

Given you're the one making the argument about "military victory", that's kind of on you to explain you're way out of the cognitive dissonance you've established here.

 

[History Learner]

........................... Are you freaking serious. What you have just said is the single dumbest thing that has been said in this entire thread. At no point in time did you put forth a logical rebuttal. All of us are a lot dumber for reading this point. We award you a blank stare. And may God have mercy on your soul.

Personal attacks are the last refuge of someone without actual points. That you have nothing of actual substance speaks volumes about the merits of your argument.

 

[Vaermina]

Sure, although in this case it was in terms of national territory to the center of battle. If you want to cite the Okinawa bases, sure, but they have the same issues as Taiwan; they're far from resupply and under the Chinese air/missile umbrella.

Wrong again... On all claims...

China has no ability to interdict Okinawa, the half dozen military bases there are very well supplied, and China's airforce wouldn't even be able to get close to Okinawa outside of a surprise attack. And that would go even worse for them then Pearl Harbor did for Japan.

No, but even taking that at face value for the sake of the argument the better question is how much ammunition do they have for them? Because they will run out and then logistics kick in.

Enough that China would literally drown itself in blood trying to take the island...

There's a good reason the only wargames that have China win involve them opening up with multiple WMD's or everyone else sitting out.

Okay, and? Doesn't change the material realities of the battlefield.

Actually it does, because it means US/Japan have friendly landing zones on Taiwan and China doesn't.

 

[History Learner]

Wrong again... On all claims...

China has no ability to interdict Okinawa, the half dozen military bases there are very well supplied, and China's airforce wouldn't even be able to get close to Okinawa outside of a surprise attack. And that would go even worse for them then Pearl Harbor did for Japan.

Not at all, because the PLAAF and Dong Fengs exist. I'm very interested to here what magic weapons you seem convinced the U.S. has that ensure the Chinese can't use either.

Enough that China would literally drown itself in blood trying to take the island...

Let's see your evidence for that.

There's a good reason the only wargames that have China win involve them opening up with multiple WMD's or everyone else sitting out.

Let's see your evidence for that.

Actually it does, because it means US/Japan have friendly landing zones on Taiwan and China doesn't.

Except, once again, for that pesky PLAAF and Dong Fengs that have range for about 1,500-2,000 miles outside of Taiwan.

 

[Sailor.X]

Personal attacks are the last refuge of someone without actual points. That you have nothing of actual substance speaks volumes about the merits of your argument.

What argument. What you posted is BS. The distance shown in the photos is what Armies of the past call River Crossing distance. Aka Engineers can build make shift bridges to cross if necessary.

 

[History Learner]

What argument. What you posted is BS. The distance shown in the photos is what Armies of the past call River Crossing distance. Aka Engineers can build make shift bridges to cross if necessary.

Okay, and to which the obvious reply is you are goal post shifting as I said; your original point was that no amphibious landing could succeed by China. Unfortunately for that statement, they already have done so in 1949. You've attempted to thus modify your original statement by adding an addendum to it, i.e. goal post shifting. Even then, your point here is invalid because no bridge existed there in 1949.

To really drive the point home, however, the distance between Xuwen County (the Southern most mainland portion of China) and Hainan is roughly 25 miles.

World's Longest Pontoon Bridge: 1.8 Miles
World's Widest River: 6.8 Miles

So no, your claim falls apart even on this metric, given we are talking about a distance almost three times the world's widest river and 25 times the largest ever constructed pontoon bridge.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Not to mention that PLA initial landings were on the flanking positions that were farther away from the mainland.

 

[History Learner]

Not to mention that PLA initial landings were on the flanking positions that were farther away from the mainland.

I also shortened the distance; according to Google it's 27.9 but I did 25 for a nice round number and in case the ferries have to take a more circuitous path to Haikou.

 

[Vaermina]

Not at all, because the PLAAF and Dong Fengs exist. I'm very interested to here what magic weapons you seem convinced the U.S. has that ensure the Chinese can't use either.

The PLAAF would get taken out by the extensive anti-air defenses around Okinawa if they tried to attack it...

And Dong Fengs are anti-ship weapons... Anti-ship weapons that have never been tested in combat conditions at that...

Let's see your evidence for that.

Let's see your evidence for that.

Every battle simulation that exists... I will repeat again, there's a reason the only time China really wins is when they open with Multiple WMD's or literally everyone else in the world just ignores their actions.

Mind you, those battle simulations don't include the economic effects. Which would be the rest of the world cutting off China and China's economy completely collapsing.

Except, once again, for that pesky PLAAF and Dong Fengs that have range for about 1,500-2,000 miles outside of Taiwan.

See above...

 

[History Learner]

The PLAAF would get taken out by the extensive anti-air defenses around Okinawa if they tried to attack it...

You have yet to establish this at all.

And Dong Fengs are anti-ship weapons... Anti-ship weapons that have never been tested in combat conditions at that...

Yes, anti shipping weapons that cut the sea lanes needed to move troops and supplies. We've also never combat tested ICBMs; would you like to claim those don't work? I'll wait.

Every battle simulation that exists... I will repeat again, there's a reason the only time China really wins is when they open with Multiple WMD's or literally everyone else in the world just ignores their actions.

Then it should be extremely easy for you to cite several as I have requested. Let's seem them.

Mind you, those battle simulations don't include the economic effects. Which would be the rest of the world cutting off China and China's economy completely collapsing.

An odd claim, given I can think of RAND's warfare simulation from 2015 which directly looked at this specific aspect. I don't think you've actually read any battle simulations, friend....

See above...

And see my requests for evidence. You've made the claim, but have yet to back it up.

 

[Vaermina]

You have yet to establish this at all.

Yes, anti shipping weapons that cut the sealanes needed to move troops and supplies. We've also never combat tested ICBMs; would you like to claim those don't work? I'll wait.

A rather pathetic false equivalence attempt... Which proves you have no intention of debating anything in good faith.

Well... I guess you also might just be a five year old that doesn't know there's a difference between shooting a completely fixed stationary target with a nuclear warhead that gives you something like a mile leeway in where it lands and shooting a target moving at 30-60km/h over the ocean with a warhead that requires an actual direct hit to work...

But the bad faith seems a lot more likely.

 

[Zachowon]

The Taliban have access to US military aircraft. Now what happens?

The Taliban have access to US military aircraft. Now what happens?

Numerous photos have surfaced on social media of Taliban fighters posing with Black Hawk helicopters, A-29 attack planes and other aircraft from the Afghan air force fleet.

www.defensenews.com

The Taliban (thereby China) now has access to US military aircraft, vehicles, helicopters, tanks, and MRAPs, from hastily abandoned American bases. The Chinese will now have scans and detection/targeting information for US Military vehicles. (assuming they didn't already have that thanks to our government and military being lousy with Chinese agents and informants)

You are ignorant.
The Blackhawks are ANA.
The MRAPs are eh, and since anything that could be used against us on the inside was ripped out, usle3ss. It doesn't matter what they try to use the MRAP for besides thier own designs. International sells them to more then the US.
What tanks? I have not seen a single M1A2 Arbams being left.

The planes are not a plane I have ever seen us use, or one that is very good.

Also, Blackhawks are helicopters and widely used by multitude of other countries.

And this literally means Jack and shit for China, because it is useless shit for them.

 

[Captain X]

Functionally, the fact that this equipment was meant for the ANA makes little difference. What matters is that these are now in Taliban hands, and the way it looks, the military knew the Taliban was going to just sweep in and take everything.

 

[Sailor.X]

Okay, and to which the obvious reply is you are goal post shifting as I said; your original point was that no amphibious landing could succeed by China. Unfortunately for that statement, they already have done so in 1949. You've attempted to thus modify your original statement by adding an addendum to it, i.e. goal post shifting. Even then, your point here is invalid because no bridge existed there in 1949.

To really drive the point home, however, the distance between Xuwen County (the Southern most mainland portion of China) and Hainan is roughly 25 miles.

World's Longest Pontoon Bridge: 1.8 Miles
World's Widest River: 6.8 Miles

So no, your claim falls apart even on this metric, given we are talking about a distance almost three times the world's widest river and 25 times the largest ever constructed pontoon bridge.

When did I say Pontoon Bridge. Because I didn't for your information. And the narrowest point is 19 miles. And these are also a thing. https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/MCRP 3-17.1A z.pdf

But on topic of Taiwan. Explain how the CCP Navy is gonna survive Taiwan's Antiship Missile defenses to even attempt an invasion. You do realize the US Navy and Marine Corps would not attempt an Amphibious invasion of Taiwan because the casualty rate would be so high it would risk crippling our Amphibious Fleet. And we have the best Amphibious force on the planet.

 

[Bacle]

When did I say Pontoon Bridge. Because I didn't for your information. And the narrowest point is 19 miles. And these are also a thing. https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/MCRP 3-17.1A z.pdf

But on topic of Taiwan. Explain how the CCP Navy is gonna survive Taiwan's Antiship Missile defenses to even attempt an invasion. You do realize the US Navy and Marine Corps would not attempt an Amphibious invasion of Taiwan because the casualty rate would be so high it would risk crippling our Amphibious Fleet. And we have the best Amphibious force on the planet.

Not to mention the US Virginia class subs likely sitting in the straight, or any other undersea defenses that could sink a lot of landing ships or thier escorts.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Yes, anti shipping weapons that cut the sea lanes needed to move troops and supplies. We've also never combat tested ICBMs; would you like to claim those don't work? I'll wait.

Actually the appropriate response would be to provide evidence as to their effectiveness since he alleged they are unproven, not to engage in silly Strawmen about ICBM's.

 

[History Learner]

Actually the appropriate response would be to provide evidence as to their effectiveness since he alleged they are unproven, not to engage in silly Strawmen about ICBM's.

If you're going to be a reply guy, you might want to read what he wrote before jumping in:

And Dong Fengs are anti-ship weapons... Anti-ship weapons that have never been tested in combat conditions at that...

He specifically said combat conditions, which is also what I said about ICBMs; they've never been used in combat either and are of a missile almost exactly like the Dong Feng which are derived from ICBM designs but with a conventional warhead.

 

[Husky_Khan]

If you're going to be a reply guy, you might want to read what he wrote before jumping in:

He specifically said combat conditions, which is also what I said about ICBMs; they've never been used in combat either and are of a missile almost exactly like the Dong Feng which are derived from ICBM designs but with a conventional warhead.

Yes I'm aware. That doesn't change how dumb your counterpoint is and that it's basically a strawman.

But then again I've never seen a Bob Semple tank nor a Ratte in action. 🤷‍♀️

 

[History Learner]

Yes I'm aware. That doesn't change how dumb your counterpoint is and that it's basically a strawman.

But then again I've never seen a Bob Semple tank nor a Ratte in action. 🤷‍♀️

But it's not a strawman, it's pointing out another piece of hardware has also never been combat tested but no one doubts its effectiveness. It's not even an apples to oranges comparison because the Dong Fengs are literally modified ICBMs.

 

[History Learner]

When did I say Pontoon Bridge. Because I didn't for your information. And the narrowest point is 19 miles. And these are also a thing. https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/MCRP 3-17.1A z.pdf

You said bridging by Armies, which is/was generally pontoon based. If you want to go with this source, however, I'm game because this is what it says:

DISADVANTAGES OF THE MGB/LRS Length - Maximum length is 49.7m.​

Not exactly 19 miles, no?

But on topic of Taiwan. Explain how the CCP Navy is gonna survive Taiwan's Antiship Missile defenses to even attempt an invasion. You do realize the US Navy and Marine Corps would not attempt an Amphibious invasion of Taiwan because the casualty rate would be so high it would risk crippling our Amphibious Fleet. And we have the best Amphibious force on the planet.

Okay, let's take that at face value: how many missiles do the Taiwanese have and how do they get resupply? Even assuming a massive stockpile with a 100% effectiveness rating, why would the PLAN go pell mell instead of, like every other military, use the PLAAF to suppress the defenses and then send the PLAN in?