How the U.S. Could Lose a War with China
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
- WW2 was a contest to the death of ideologies that happened after the USA became isolationist and weak (Dr. Hansen)
- today, the USA is not overtly isolationist, however their loyalty to Taiwan, HK, etc. is suspect. The USA is weak on aircraft inventory - the F-22 fleet rounds off to zero, same with the F-35. Way to go, military procurement officers!
- The CCP is brittle - they may go nuclear if facing a loss since they never back down or take no for an answer
- Taiwan could plan to defend itself. It already has enough F-16s (unless surprise-striked), it just needs to give every citizen a MANPAD and a rifle.
- Although CCP is building a navy to rival the USA, the USA is ready today and could blockade China and overwhlem the 9-dash islands with cruise missiles or ICBMs.
- the one advantage of a war with China is that the USA would have a free pass to rain missiles on North Korea
Interesting times!
"Look at what happened after the war. Douglas MacArthur ordered the divine emperor to quit being God, and he did, making a speech saying he was just an ordinary person. So after 1946 he wasn't God anymore." - Haruki Murakami, in Kafka on the Shore
Of what use are MANPADs against the Ballistic Missile salvos which China is guaranteed to use in crippling Taiwan's air bases and air defense units? or against the J-10s, J-11s, Su-30s, & Su-35s which would be used to leisurely destroy aircrafts parked at crippled air bases and every single high value target on the Island? Of what use will they be against the literally thousands of Short Range Ballistic Missiles pointed at Taiwan. Or against the ASBMs & ASCMs that China has diligently developed or acquired for the sole purpose of sinking or are at the very least, significantly damaging large warships far off its coasts.
An Asia War will NOT be Afghanistan 2.0. It would be a war whose success would be determined almost entirely by the Air Force and the Navy, NOT by the Army.
You are viewing a war with China, a neer-peer power, through the lens of the Afghanistan & Iraq conflicts. You forget that Aircraft Carriers would be useless, planes would be fighting in highly contested airspace, and our soldiers would be fighting for the first time in modern history, without guaranteed air cover (a terrifying notion if you've ever being on the receiving end of an aerial attack).
Like they say, don't train your military to fight the last war. Cause the next major war will almost certainly not be like the last one, so fantasies of handing every Taiwanese a rifle, should remain completely speculative, save for the purpose of mounting an insurgency campaign against a possible occupying force.
P.S. Forgive me if I sounded pissed, just that I'm tired of armchair war enthusiasts who are seemingly unaware of what it would take to fight, let alone win, a war with a major power, and the extraordinary costs in personnel and materiel that fighting such a war would entail. Heck if it ever came to that, we'd have a hard time defeating India, not to talk of China.
The article and many articles like it fail to explain the big picture. The US has indirect way to counter Chinese aggression. Sea blockade from distance where the US has military advantage would cut almost all sea traffic to China and isolate it from the world economy. Chinese are well aware of their position as a logistic cul-de-sac. The Belt and Road Initiative can be seen as long term strategic plan to go around this problem. It loses money but Chinese need it to work so they do it anyway.
The US could probably do without China but US partners would not. Australia, Japan, South Korea etc. would at some point break rank.
The US is a sea-power, China is a land-power. As a land-power already situated on the 'world-island' China has no need of a huge SEA-going Navy. All it needs is a bunch of anti-ship missiles.
Meanwhile, the US that lives on the peripheral 'americas-island' is powerless without a means to reach the 'world-island' where all the action is.
See Mackinder and GeoPolitics.
Blockading a nuclear power with ICBM and hypersonic missile is the same as claiming the guard at checkpoint Charlie is a USSR deterrent