Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

It always seemed a bit unlikely that a manufacturing superpower gets defeated on its own turf. If WWIII breaks out over Taiwan, it is hard to see how China doesn't get what it wants in the manner the article describes.

There is some evidence between the way the US was handling the middle east and last years notable war [0] that the military future involves drones. It isn't at all obvious from the peanut gallery that China will be at a disadvantage unless the situation gets apocalyptic. Even then, if they just wait or apply slow pressure it seems likely they'll eclipse the US to the point where Americans just can't afford to sustain operations on China's doorstep. China has all this money and America has all those debts. Wars are expensive.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war

View on HN

What good is a war on/for Taiwan? The magic of Taiwan is the brains of the scientists and the tribal knowledge of the researchers. Killing them/getting them killed isn’t going to help you acquire them.

Taiwan has symbolic value. The CCP has made "reunification" a major part of its "platform" for decades, and a leader who accomplishes that will go down in history in the pantheon of Chinese leaders alongside Mao. So, a CCP leader seeking glory would attempt unification if he judges that China can win. On the other side, the US is Taiwan's security guarantor, and if the US lets China take Taiwan, the US will lose credibility with its Asian allies. Asian countries wary of China may recalculate the power calculus and feel the need to acquiesce to China. Taiwan is also a symbol of the democratic ideals of China's founding and proof that democracy is compatible with so-called "Asian values." Destroying Taiwan eliminates an ideological threat to the CCP's non-democratic legitimacy.

Strategically, Taiwan is an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" that China wants.

Some of what you're describing has already come to pass with Hong Kong. China is applying the squeeze to Hong Kong that skirts the bounds of definition of the agreement as part of the British handover, ie. one country, two systems[1].

It's fairly easy to see China's future actions with any expanded territories that the rest of the world may allow with eyes downcast.

[1]:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems

If you think China cares about murdering smart people you need to read up on their history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

If Taiwan looks like it might be a battleground, then I guess the question is what country the elites flee to.

Can you name a single war that was started with logical reasons more than emotional ones?

Plenty of wars have been waged over territorial or economic reasons and realpolitik.

You assume that China would be the initiator of the war.

China will be able to temporarily convert its commercial industrial factory output into wartime use and just spam drones at Taiwan. All of the infrastructure is already there, a switch just needs to be flipped. The US did the same in WW2, though instead of drones back then, it was planes, tanks, and munitions.

The US has nukes now. The fight wouldn't last long enough to make use of those factories.

Implying preemptive nuclear strike, nice.

China also has nuke you know, there is even a term for it: "mutually assured destruction".

MAD does not apply to China. They have a very limited second-strike capability at this point, especially considering the ranges to the US mainland. They have ~50 ICBMs capable of reaching the US mainland, of which half are in silos. The other half are road-mobile, which means they’re relying on being able to move them around quickly and hide them to provide the ability to retaliate.

They have seven SSBNs, one of which is a Xia-class which isn’t capable of launching SLBMs with significant range. The remaining six Jin-class SSBNs are notoriously noisy, which means they are relatively easy to locate and destroy.

Please don't jump to conclusions. I wasn't implying advanced strike. The assumption was that both parties were already at war.

per,

> convert its commercial industrial factory output into wartime use and just spam drones at Taiwan.

I also assume they'd use tactical nukes or munitions.

You failed to understand China also has nuke, if you intend to nuke a Country with nuke, do it preemptively, or don't.

You're failing to understand game theory here.

What good are nukes if you are not willing to use them and let others take what they want.

By having a very real threat of nuclear escalation you keep others at bay. That's how the US was kept out of cuba, that's how Russia was kept out of western europe.

Here, it's a very real threat of escalation:

- if China invades, US escalates conventionally and wipes out what it can. (conventional US missiles are not that far from tactical nukes, US navy will easily wipe out Chinese navy)

- Then China can escalate further by attacking US forces via land-to-sea missiles, aircrafts, etc, a few sunk aircraft carriers and you'll see the US out for blood.

- tactical nukes will likely be used by any side if it loses too badly.

- US could always do some risky air-strikes against Chinese leadership and close the war that way (or nukes start flying)

- China can't really reach the US mainland that easily and US has quite a few anti-missile forces off japan and on the mainland.

- at this point, it's survive who is best prepared. I'm assuming US will come off a lot better then China.

For the record, there is no China "invades" Taiwan, it's merely reclaiming it. US does NOT recognize Taiwan as a independent nation.

Taiwan doesn't have nukes, and China would not use nuke against them.

Once US intervenes, game changes.

> there is no China "invades" Taiwan, it's merely reclaiming it

different words, same meaning... In effect, China sending in military is an invasion... They will likely sell it as 'glorious reunification' 1984 style

While US does not recognize Taiwan it does guarantee it de facto. Not recognizing it is due to cold war politics where US needed China against Russia, that's no longer the case.

> that's no longer the case.

US still haven't established formal diplomatic relation with Taiwan, like all UNSC countries, your argument is simply invalid.

> US still haven't established formal diplomatic relation with Taiwan, like all UNSC countries, your argument is simply invalid.

Here's the result of an invasion by people that have looked into this more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs1ahNtj498

Here's info on US relationship with taiwan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan%E2%80%93United_States_r...

> On July 14, 1982 the Republican Reagan Administration gave specific assurances to Taiwan that the United States did not accept China's claim to sovereignty over the island (Six Assurances),[37][39]

> Despite friendly relations with China, United States President George W. Bush was asked on 25 April 2001, "if Taiwan were attacked by China, do we (The U.S.) have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?" He responded, "Yes, we do...and the Chinese must understand that. The United States would do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself."[43] He made it understood that "though we (China and the U.S.) have common interests, the Chinese must understand that there will be some areas where we disagree."[43]

Also, you have to be aware that Mao wanted to invade Taiwan but US got in the way then too (ignoring the complete incompetence and inability to launch naval invasion)

How is that relevant? you claimed things have changed since then, show me the money.

> How is that relevant? you claimed things have changed since then, show me the money.

This is what I said:

> US needed China against Russia, that's no longer the case.

US no longer needs China against Russia... There's your money... What's hard to understand about that?

(USSR is gone, communism is gone, Russia is no longer the superpower it was although it still is a major threat)

Now, comment above was with respect to:

> US still haven't established formal diplomatic relation with Taiwan, like all UNSC countries, your argument is simply invalid.

Even though they haven't established formal relations, they still guarantee Taiwan, straight from the horses mouth in some cases -> see Reagan/Bush/Trump

"That" didn't happen after "that".

When do you draw the line "US no longer needs China against Russia"?

In your opinion, does US need China against Russia?

In my opinion, not since 1989 when USSR crumbled.

Also, it's irrelevant, George Bush is quoted directly that US will intervene to defend Taiwan, same policy was from Reagan well within cold war. So I stand corrected, it does not matter if US needs or not China, it will intervene.

Its not preemptive if China invades taiwan.

It's similar to cuba had the US invaded nukes would have been flying.

In this case you would see chinese invasion force wiped out and blockade, after which nukes will definitely be flying.

> The US has nukes now

As if China has not?

The PLAN has been building up its navy and is expected to handily exceed the USN in the next 5 years. Basically, in a short period of 5-10 years, the PLAN has grown from insignificance into a serious adversary that builds capable ships that can give the USN serious headaches. Most of the PLAN's numbers are in corvettes and attack craft, to US's heavier and larger vessels (PLAN has something like 2 or 3 aircraft carriers to USN's 11 something).

The PRC has also invested heavily in missile technology and is perhaps ahead of the US in anti-ship missiles. It has also built up small positions that can be built up easily on the disputed reefs etc. in the South China Sea in anticipation of getting blockaded.

I say all of this in support of the thesis that drones will play a less decisive role than the navies of the two countries.

Most of what you state about China doesn't mean anything in modern warfare. It's not about who has the bigger gun or most guns, but who can use their guns most effectively. Consider that China has no experience in modern warfare or large scale conflict. How effective do you think China will be against a highly experienced adversary?

Most of what I state does mean a lot. You can't project power without a world-class navy. Both world powers (in fact almost all) have/had the best navies in the world.

The two parts to a world-class navy are the ships and the men. China has already done the first part. I agree with you on the second part: the Chinese have not participated in large-scale armed conflict, so they don't have experience. But it must be borne in mind that the US has also not fought any big naval war in recent times and morale is very low because crews are being worked to the bone. Unless the USN addresses these challenges effectively, they don't hold a huge edge.

>Most of what I state does mean a lot. You can't project power without a world-class navy.

I agree. And China has never fought a major naval war or even a major naval battle.

>The two parts to a world-class navy are the ships and the men.

Part 3 is competent leaders. The US has admirals that have been taught by admirals that have been taught by admirals that have fought a major war in the Pacific. (Japan has them, too.) And China does not. George Friedman says that that is an important factor.

Exactly.

The war is already lost.

And for every year that China outgrows the US it just becomes more obvious.

The alternative is for the US to pick a fight in an asymetric manner.

Sow discontent in the periphery of China (HK, Xinjiang, Tibet). Tech war.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com