Hacker News Reader

Comment by AtlasBarfed | Hacker News Reader

This is interesting posturing, but ultimately I think the Ukraine drone war has made an invasion of Taiwan by China virtually impossible.

- Surface naval assets are extremely vulnerable to drones, so a blockade probably can't be maintained

- a marine assault will get utterly obliterated by drones as well as conventional military defenses

- urban warfare with drones is now even more difficult

- wars like this expose governmental corruption on a massive scale, so the mainland military won't want it to happen

- the Malacca Straits will be blockaded by a deep water navy (ours) that can't be reached by Ukraine-style drones, so China's economy collapses without oil for fertilizer, energy, and transportation

View on HN

Feel like this is way too optimistic. The Chinese strategy isn’t to actually put boots on the ground - it’s to make invasion inevitable by having a massive mismatch in power. Then they present a fait accompli to the American President, making grandiose promises in exchange for taking Taiwan with minimal loss of life. If the American President is a transactional person who can be bought cheap, it’ll work.

They’ve managed to address a lot of their disadvantages as well

- Energy is a lot less oil dependent as they’ve transitioned to solar, wind and nuclear, while also electrifying cars and buses.

- Of course oil is important, which is why they have a 2 billion barrel reserve. That could last them 6 months with zero imports.

- But in practice they have reduced their reliance on oil imports through the straits of Malacca because they can get oil through Pakistan (Gwadar).

- Exposing corruption is something Xi is very comfortable with. He’s purged the PLA leadership multiple times, even men he’s appointed personally. Certainly a chunk of the military budget is siphoned away, but the spending is so high and their manufacturing so solid that they have enough of everything they need (missiles, transport ships, destroyers, submarines, fighter planes).

- Drones have changed the game, but it is unclear that Taiwan is prioritising them in the quantities they need. Ukraine needs thousands of drones per day of different kinds. They’re going all in on drone innovation and manufacturing and the Taiwanese aren’t (although they could be keeping it secret). They waste money on prestige kit like fighter jets that will never be allowed to leave their airfields.

If Taiwan has 50k unjammable, unhackable drones covering every approach to the island, both air and underwater, with enough personnel to manage them all, distributed across the island, then maybe they have a hope. But my sense is that when America abandons them in exchange for a few soybean sales, they’ll struggle to survive on their own.

In a perfect world of solar/wind, oil is still really necessary, especially to a manufacturing economy (plastics/materials/lubrication), and most importantly: fertilizer.

Sure, China's strategic reserve lasts 6 months. Then ... starvation.

South Korea, Japan, INDIA, and Southeast Asia will probably view China's assault on Taiwan as imperialism,

The US is not going to sell out TSMC production for soybeans. TSMC production loss alone would tank the US economy into a depression for probably 5-10 years.

And I always wonder if an "illegal" invasion happens if the US can cancel its debt to China.... Which I guess is "only" 750-900 billion, but it's still something that can probably be done.

Finally, wars are financed by debt. If China gets international sanctions from an invasion... who pays for it? Russia can't. India won't. China is a bigger house of financial cards than the US is if you believe some of the doom.

Never underestimate the incompetence of large organizations, but drone manufacture on that scale is not a big lift compared to say, tanks and fighter jet design and manufacturing. 50,000 drones fit in how many shipping containers? 20? And yes, drones are now unhackable with fiber optic line leads, certainly for defense of beach assaults. Naval drones are a different story.

China is always some form of warlord confederation. Launching a foolish invasion that fails quickly invites a total collapse of the Beijing power center of the CCP. Starvation from a blockade/sanctions ... invites a total collapse of the CCP. I would argue that Russia's population was tolerant of the Ukraine invasion because the Russian government was in a quid pro quo with the population: we keep the lights on, the oil cheap, and decent enough economy, and you let Putin do what he does.

The CCP does not have the same quid-pro-quo with the Chinese people AFAIK, and has a lot less leeway with them with the COVID lockdowns and general dislike of the CCP. A failed invasion and then catastrophic economic sanctions could topple the CCP very very very quickly.

Just to confirm, by soybeans you mean soybean exports to China?

Uh yes, we aren't selling out Taiwan and TSMC supply which enables all of our high-end tech companies for soybean exports to China.

I mean, I guess in the current administration of lunacy, it is possible. I suppose I am assuming far too much rationalism.

> Surface naval assets are extremely vulnerable to drones, so a blockade probably can't be maintained

> the Malacca Straits will be blockaded by a deep water navy (ours) that can't be reached by Ukraine-style drones, so China's economy collapses without oil for fertilizer, energy, and transportation

Then don't use Ukraine-style drones. Also, blockading Malacca also tanks the Phillipines, Japan and Korea.

The Malacca Straits not being that wide, would make it easier for China's carrier killer missiles to destroy them.

- the US doesn't have to sit IN the Malacca Straits, but oil traffic does HAVE to go that way. The US can park naval assets in the middle of the Indian Ocean, and intercept traffic coming out of the Middle East from the Arabian Sea. They have satellites and tracking to enforce a wide area of denial, far from missile intercept.

- oil pipelines, railroads, and other continental transport modes, in addition to being more expensive, slower, and limited in bandwidth, and extremely vulnerable to sabotage, political interference from countries they have to go through, etc.

- submarines

I caution against using whatever the Russian army and, especially, navy is going through as a guideline on what can or cannot happen to a competent, well equipped force. Putting it bluntly, their equipment is not only subpar, it is also poorly mantained and crewed by people who were not properly trained for its operation, and commanded by leaders who were almost never promoted for their competence.

> or cannot happen to a competent, well equipped force ... their equipment is not only subpar, it is also poorly mantained and crewed by people who were not properly trained for its operation, and commanded by leaders who were almost never promoted for their competence.

I think it's far from clear that this isn't the case for the PLA -- nobody has any idea because they haven't seen any combat other than harassing fishermen or hitting Indians with sticks since they had to do a face-saving retreat from 'nam in the late 70s.

It's possible they've got Western-style NCOs and their rockets aren't full of water, but, who knows? They probably don't even know themselves, and if you're a Chinese general who's gotten fat off their position, are you really going to sound the alarm?

All this is of course also true of Japan and Taiwan, although one would hope that their allies have managed to iron out the kinks there.

EDIT: It's also entirely unclear how well any of these populations is going to deal with troops getting shot, which is important.

Yes, it is possible that China shares many of the same weaknesses - for instance, a few years back a video circulated from their infantry training that showed their rifles keyholing targets at extremely close range [0], suggesting inadequate equipment, but it would be dangerous to assume this is globally true for them without more evidence. Evidence, which, given China's keenness on saving face at all cost, we are unlikely to get until the conflict actually starts.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/wev84u/...

r/NCD is the only thing I miss about Reddit

The US's master plan for aiding Taiwan revolves around assuming China will magically forget that transport helicopters exist and then dumbly force their entire armed forces into 1940's Higgins boats for conga line suicide charges into Taiwans most defended + mined beaches.

...It should go without saying that these are brain dead assumptions. China definitely has a much better plan than this.

AIM-120D have a theoretical range of 180 km. Transport helicopters are an easy picking and could be shot down before they even leave the mainland.

Taiwan is basically a mountain fortress island. And drones only make it far more so. You think transport helicopters could penetrate modern drone flotillas? You think the landing boats of WWII are vulnerable?

Higgins boats are CHEAP and move a lot of soldiers. Helicopters are EXPENSIVE and easily downed and move less soldiers and equipment.

The general tone of the dissenters is that mainland China is competent, and Taiwan is incompetent. If anything, it is likely to be the opposite. The CCP is a purged autocratic cult at this point with full communication and coordination breakdowns in basic government functions.

IMO, Xi and China are coasting on the Deng Xiaoping reform effects. Mainland China is an ossifying and crumbling state, they simply have so much momentum that it doesn't seem like it. Everyone with offshored manufacturing is attempting to move it from China. That's a multi-decade trend, but it's still the trend. Of the entire world.

Corregidor was a mountain fortress island.

Did Corregidor have MANPADs? Antiship missiles? Antiaircraft missiles?

Corregidor had improper stocks of supplies it appears.

They were using horse cavalry?

Did Corregidor have its own defensive air wing?

Did Corregidor have 150,000 defenders? Or just 15,000?

The Japanese were a battle-tested navy and army and airforce at that point, after dozens of imperial conflicts as well as the Sino-Russian wars.

The Chinese military are almost entirely untested, and likely riddled with corruption. A Chinese invasion will almost certainly involve a plan that looks like it's what an invasion plan looks like when reported to the CCP, but it won't be an experience-informed battle plan, nor am I sure the Chinese military will be able to handle the "battle plans are great until you get punched in the face".

Is it a sure defense for Taiwan against a full force invasion? Of course not. Is it a guaranteed victory for mainland China? Of course not.

The political risk to Xi is high. Even with a successful invasion, and an embargo/blockade, it could politically topple the CCP. A failed invasion would likely involve a highly destabilizing embargo/blockage that could similarly topple the CCP.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com